Costs of colorectal cancer screening provision in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program: Comparisons of colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT based screening

Cost-effectiveness of blood-based colorectal cancer screening - a simulation model incorporating real-world longitudinal adherence

OBJECTIVES

Although U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended CRC screenings are effective; patient reluctance reduces adherence. Most cost-effectiveness models assume perfect adherence, yet one-third of eligible individuals aren't current with CRC screening. Our study assesses the cost-effectiveness of Shield, an FDA-approved blood-based CRC screening test, using real-world adherence.

METHODS

The CAN-SCREEN (Colorectal cANcer SCReening Economics and adherENce) model, a validated discrete-event simulation, evaluated clinical and economic outcomes of CRC screening under real-world adherence scenarios. We compared the Shield blood-based test administered every 3 years to no screening, considering it cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was under $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Shield increased QALYs by 154 and raised costs by $7.5 million per 1,000 individuals, with an ICER of $48,662 per QALY, meeting the $100,000/QALY threshold. Shield remained cost-effective up to a unit cost of $3,241 (at $100,000/QALY) and $4,942 (at $150,000/QALY). Sensitivity analyses confirmed cost-effectiveness with lower adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy (56.1%) and annual screenings.

CONCLUSION

The CAN-SCREEN model shows that Shield is cost-effective compared to no screening. Including real-world adherence improves accuracy in assessing screening strategies. Shield's noninvasive approach offers a promising, cost-effective way to increase adherence and reduce CRC mortality.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Implementing Mailed Colorectal Cancer Fecal Screening Tests in Real-World Primary Care Settings: Promising Implementation Practices and Opportunities for Improvement

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces morbidity and mortality, but screening rates in the USA remain suboptimal. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) was established in 2009 to increase screening among groups disproportionately affected. The CRCCP utilizes implementation science to support health system change as a strategy to reduce disparities in CRC screening by directing resources to primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) proven to increase CRC screening. As COVID-19 continues to impede in-person healthcare visits and compel the unpredictable redirection of clinic priorities, understanding clinics' adoption and implementation of EBIs into routine care is crucial. Mailed fecal testing is an evidence-based screening approach that offers an alternative to in-person screening tests and represents a promising approach to reduce CRC screening disparities. However, little is known about how mailed fecal testing is implemented in real-world settings. In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis, we assessed practices around mailed fecal testing implementation in 185 clinics across 62 US health systems. We sought to (1) determine whether clinics that do and do not implement mailed fecal testing differ with respect to characteristics (e.g., type, location, and proportion of uninsured patients) and (2) identify implementation practices among clinics that offer mailed fecal testing. Our findings revealed that over half (58%) of clinics implemented mailed fecal testing. These clinics were more likely to have a CRC screening policy than clinics that did not implement mailed fecal testing (p = 0.007) and to serve a larger patient population (p = 0.004), but less likely to have a large proportion of uninsured patients (p = 0.01). Clinics that implemented mailed fecal testing offered it in combination with EBIs, including patient reminders (92%), provider reminders (94%), and other activities to reduce structural barriers (95%). However, fewer clinics reported having the leadership support (58%) or funding stability (29%) to sustain mailed fecal testing. Mailed fecal testing was widely implemented alongside other EBIs in primary care clinics participating in the CRCCP, but multiple opportunities for enhancing its implementation exist. These include increasing the proportion of community health centers/federally qualified health centers offering mailed screening; increasing the proportion that provide pre-paid return mail supplies with the screening kit; increasing the proportion of clinics monitoring both screening kit distribution and return; ensuring patients with abnormal tests can obtain colonoscopy; and increasing sustainability planning and support.

Bacterial biomarkers: new aspects of colorectal tumors diagnosis: reality or fantasy

As one of the most common cancers, colorectal cancer (CRC) is considered as a significant leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Gut microbiota is part of a complex microbial-based ecosystem in the human body so that changes in the microbiota could lead to a variety of diseases. A growing number of studies have shown that bacteria are both individually and collectively involved in the progression of CRC. The present review study provided a summary of some of the available data on the advantages and limitations of current CRC screening methods as well as gut biomarkers including genetic, epigenetic, and protein markers. Moreover, a summary of the applications and limitations in the detection of gut microbiota markers as well as their role in early diagnosis and timely treatment response in CRC patients was provided.

Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test and Colonoscopy With Histopathology Findings in Saudi Adults

Background/aims Colorectal cancer cases are on the rise in developing countries, necessitating dependable detection tests. Moreover, medical procedures have become increasingly burdensome for both patients and healthcare professionals. This study aims to delve deeper into the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as a potential solution. Settings and design The research took place at the Gastroenterology Specialized Clinic (Human Clinic) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The study gathered results from colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, histopathology, and FOBT screening. Essential variables linked to colorectal cancer, including gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic diseases, hemoglobin (Hgb), body mass index (BMI), and medication usage, were documented to evaluate their potential predictive significance for positive outcomes. Methods and materials In line with the study aims, inclusion criteria covered Saudi adults aged 18 and above, experiencing lower GI symptoms, with colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy, FOBT, and histopathological results. The resultant sample size was 72 patients. Non-Saudi individuals, symptoms-free patients, and those below 18 years were excluded. This retrospective analysis spanned from September 2021 to September 2022. For statistical analysis, after the data rationality was checked, parametric or non-parametric tests were used. P ≤ 0.05 was set as the significant level. Results Among the 72 patients, ranging in age from 18 to 80 (mean 42.94), males (57) outnumbered females (15). The average BMI was 27.56, with one-third of patients classified as overweight or obese. A majority of 47 (65.2%) exhibited normal Hgb levels while only five (7%) had abnormal levels. Results from colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy and FOBT displayed statistical similarity between positive and negative outcomes. Additionally, the notable prevalence of positive results compared to negative ones underscores the resemblance between FOBT and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy findings. Conclusion Chronic illness, constitutional symptoms, BMI, and Hgb did not display a significant predictive value, However, the group with GI symptoms exhibited a strong prediction for favorable colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy and histology outcomes. Additional research is necessary to validate these observed patterns.

Healthcare costs, resource utilization, and productivity loss associated with colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate healthcare costs, resource utilization, associated costs, and lost productivity for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in an average-risk population.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified average-risk individuals (50-75 years) with claims in the Optum Research Database for CRC screening test between 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018. Index date was defined as the first date of a claim for colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA). Screening costs were evaluated with descriptive statistics and multivariable analyses, adjusting for patient characteristics and index screening costs.

RESULTS

In total, 903,831 individuals were identified by test groups: mt-sDNA (n = 29,614), FIT (n = 254,002), guaiac-based FOBT (n = 112,757) and colonoscopy (n = 507,458). Adjusted costs for index screening were, colonoscopy ($3,029), mt-sDNA ($752), FIT ($45), and (FOBT ($153). Adjusted costs across the six months following the index screening were $146 for colonoscopy, $329 for mt-sDNA, $306 for FIT, and $412 for FOBT. Colonoscopy had the highest costs for lost productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening colonoscopy had the highest productivity loss and healthcare costs up-front, suggesting potential cost benefits for noninvasive screening modalities. The more frequent screening interval required for FIT and FOBT resulted in a higher yearly cost than colonoscopy or mt-sDNA.

Real-world compliance with the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer polypectomy surveillance guidelines: an observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Overuse of screening colonoscopy increases cost and procedural adverse events, but inadequate surveillance can miss the development of colorectal cancer. We measured compliance with the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) polypectomy surveillance guidelines in clinical records and a survey.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study comparing surveillance intervals for first-time average-risk colonoscopies with the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. Cases were analyzed from 3 intervals (March 2021 to May 2021, November 2021 to January 2022, and April 2022 to May 2022), collectively termed the postguideline period, and a baseline period from November 2019 to January 2020. Real-world compliance rates were compared with results of a survey conducted between November 2020 and February 2021.

RESULTS

Overall compliance was 48.9% among 532 colonoscopies, ranging from 8.3% for low-risk adenomas (LRAs), 88.3% for high-risk adenomas, 63.1% for sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), and 88.6% for hyperplastic polyps. Compliance for LRA increased from the baseline period (.8% vs 8.3%, P = .003), and 95.3% of nonadherent LRA cases followed the 2012 USMSTF guidelines. Compliance for LRAs was 18.6% among respondents who provided a compliant surveillance interval for LRAs in the survey. Noncompliance was associated with finishing training >10 years ago (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.7) and performing over 800 colonoscopies annually (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of the 2020 USMSTF surveillance guidelines remains low at 2 years. Further research into outcomes for patients with LRAs and SSPs may increase guideline adoption.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success.

CONCLUSION

Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Costs of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy, including post-endoscopy events, among adults with Medicaid insurance

OBJECTIVE

To examine the healthcare utilization and costs associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by colonoscopy, including costs associated with post-endoscopy events, among average-risk adults covered by Medicaid insurance.

METHODS

This cohort study evaluated a population of adults (ages 50-75 years) with CRC screening between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/2018 (index = earliest test) from the IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database. Individuals at above-average risk for CRC or with prior CRC screening were excluded. CRC screening was reported by screening type: colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test [FIT], fecal occult blood test [FOBT], multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA]. Frequency and costs of events potentially related to colonoscopy (defined as occurring within 30 days post-endoscopy) were reported overall, by event type, and by individual event.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 13,134 average-risk adults covered by Medicaid insurance who received screening by colonoscopy; 63.6% (8350) had Medicare dual-eligibility while 36.4% (4785) did not have Medicare dual-eligibility. The mean (SD) cost of a colonoscopy procedure was $684 ($907) and mean (SD) out-of-pocket costs were $6 ($132). Serious gastrointestinal (GI) events (perforation and bleeding) were observed in 4.6% of individuals with colonoscopy, 4.3% had other GI events, and 3.0% had an incident cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event. Mean (SD) event-related costs were $1233 ($5784) among individuals with a serious GI event, $747 ($1961) among individuals with other GI events, and $4398 ($19,369) among individuals with a cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event.

CONCLUSIONS

This large, claims-based cohort study reports average (SD) out-of-pocket costs for Medicaid beneficiaries at $6 ($132), which could be one factor contributing to the accessibility of CRC screening by colonoscopy. The incidence of events potentially associated with colonoscopy (i.e. within 30 days after the screening) was 3-4%, and the event-related costs were considerable.

Yield of Post-Acute Diverticulitis Colonoscopy for Ruling Out Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy is recommended post-acute diverticulitis (AD) to exclude underlying adenocarcinoma (CRC). However, post-AD colonoscopy utility remains controversial. We aimed to examine yield of post-AD colonoscopy in our majority-Hispanic patient population.

METHODS

Patients undergoing post-AD colonoscopy between 11/1/2015-7/31/2021 were identified from a prospectively maintained endoscopic database. AD cases without computed tomography confirmation were excluded. Pertinent data, including complicated vs uncomplicated AD, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result post-AD/pre-colonoscopy, and number/type/location of non-advanced adenomas, advanced adenomas, and CRC, were abstracted. Analyses were conducted using two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

208 patients were included, of whom 62.0% had uncomplicated AD. Median age was 53, 54.3% were female, and 77.4% were Hispanic. Ninety non-advanced adenomas were detected in 45 patients (21.6%), in addition to advanced adenoma in eight patients (3.8%). Two patients (1.0%) had CRC, both of whom had complicated AD in the same location seen on imaging, and one of whom was FIT+ (the other had not undergone FIT). Patients with uncomplicated versus complicated AD had similarly low rates of advanced adenomas (4.7% vs. 2.5%, p=0.713). FIT data were available in 51 patients and positive in three (5.9%); non-advanced adenomas were found in all three FIT+ patients. No FIT- patient had an advanced adenoma or CRC.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy post-AD is generally low yield, with CRC being rare and found only in those with complicated AD. Colonoscopy post-complicated AD appears advisable, whereas less invasive testing (e.g. FIT) may be considered post-uncomplicated AD to inform the need for colonoscopy.

Effects of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective, screening rates lag far below recommended levels, particularly for low-income people. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) funded $100 million in competitively awarded grants to 25 states from 2009-2015 to increase CRC screening rates among low-income, uninsured populations, in part by directly providing and paying for screening services. Using data from the 2001-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and a difference-in-differences strategy, we find no effects of CRCCP on the use of relatively cheap fecal occult blood tests (FOBT). We do, however, find that the CRCCP significantly increased the likelihood that uninsured 50-64-year-olds report ever having a relatively expensive endoscopic CRC screening (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) by 2.9 percentage points, or 10.7%. These effects are larger for women, minorities, and individuals who did not undertake other types of preventive care. We do not find that the CRCCP led to significant changes in CRC cancer detection. Our results indicate that the CRCCP was effective at increasing CRC screening rates among the most vulnerable.

Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Approximately 3–5% of CRCs are associated with hereditary cancer syndromes. Individuals who harbor germline mutations are at an increased risk of developing early onset CRC, as well as extracolonic tumors. Genetic testing can identify genes that cause these syndromes. Early detection could facilitate the initiation of targeted prevention strategies and surveillance for CRC patients and their families. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of CRC genetic testing. We utilized a cross-sectional design to determine the cost-effectiveness of CRC genetic testing as compared to the usual screening method (iFOBT) from the provider’s perspective. Data on costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 200 CRC patients from three specialist general hospitals were collected. A mixed-methods approach of activity-based costing, top-down costing, and extracted information from a clinical pathway was used to estimate provider costs. Patients and family members’ HRQoL were measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Data from the Malaysian Study on Cancer Survival (MySCan) were used to calculate patient survival. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost per life-year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The provider cost for CRC genetic testing was high as compared to that for the current screening method. The current practice for screening is cost-saving as compared to genetic testing. Using a 10-year survival analysis, the estimated number of LYs gained for CRC patients through genetic testing was 0.92 years, and the number of QALYs gained was 1.53 years. The cost per LY gained and cost per QALY gained were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) showed that genetic testing dominates iFOBT testing. CRC genetic testing is cost-effective and could be considered as routine CRC screening for clinical practice.

Can Cost-effectiveness Analysis Inform Genotype-Guided Aspirin Use for Primary Colorectal Cancer Prevention?

BACKGROUND

Inherited genetic variants can modify the cancer-chemopreventive effect of aspirin. We evaluated the clinical and economic value of genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer chemoprevention in average-risk individuals.

METHODS

A decision analytical model compared genotype-guided aspirin use versus no genetic testing, no aspirin. The model simulated 100,000 adults ≥50 years of age with average colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease risk. Low-dose aspirin daily starting at age 50 years was recommended only for those with a genetic test result indicating a greater reduction in colorectal cancer risk with aspirin use. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The mean cost of using genotype-guided aspirin was $187,109 with 19.922 mean QALYs compared with $186,464 with 19.912 QALYs for no genetic testing, no aspirin. Genotype-guided aspirin yielded an ICER of $66,243 per QALY gained, and was cost-effective in 58% of simulations at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Genotype-guided aspirin was associated with 1,461 fewer polyps developed, 510 fewer colorectal cancer cases, and 181 fewer colorectal cancer-related deaths. This strategy prevented 1,078 myocardial infarctions with 1,430 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 323 intracranial hemorrhage cases compared with no genetic testing, no aspirin.

CONCLUSIONS

Genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer chemoprevention may offer a cost-effective approach for the future management of average-risk individuals.

IMPACT

A genotype-guided aspirin strategy may prevent colorectal cancer, colorectal cancer-related deaths, and myocardial infarctions, while minimizing bleeding adverse events. This model establishes a framework for genetically-guided aspirin use for targeted chemoprevention of colorectal cancer with application toward commercial testing in this population.

KCNQ5 and C9orf50 Methylation in Stool DNA for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer

Background

Aberrant DNA methylation has emerged as a class of promising biomarkers for early colorectal cancer (CRC) detection, but the performance of methylated C9orf50 and methylated KCNQ5 in stool DNA has never been evaluated.

Methods

Methylation specific quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays for methylated C9orf50 and methylated KCNQ5 were developed. The methylation levels of C9orf50 and KCNQ5 in 198 CRC patients, 20 advanced adenoma (AA) patients, 101 small polyp (SP) patients, and 141 no evidence of disease (NED) subjects were analyzed.

Results

The methylation levels of both KCNQ5 and C9orf50 genes were significantly higher in CRC and AA groups than those in SP and NED groups, but showed no significant difference among different stages of CRC. The sensitivities of methylated KCNQ5 and methylated C9orf50 for CRC detection were 77.3% (95% CI: 70.7–82.8%) and 85.9% (95% CI: 80.0–90.2%) with specificities of 91.5% (95% CI: 85.3–95.3%) and 95.0% (95% CI: 89.7–97.8%), respectively. When C9orf50 and methylated KCNQ5 were combined, the clinical performance for CRC detection was similar to that of methylated C9orf50 alone.

Conclusions

Stool DNA based methylated C9orf50 test has the potential to become an alternative approach for CRC screening and prevention.

The health economic impact of varying levels of adherence to colorectal screening on providers and payers

AIMS

To examine the impact of increasing multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA [Cologuard]) utilization for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in cohorts aged 50-75 and 45-75 years old with varying levels of adherence from the perspectives of integrated delivery networks (IDNs) and payers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a budget impact model that simulates CRC screening with colonoscopy over a 10-year time horizon, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and mt-sDNA according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society guidelines for average risk adults. We evaluated varying levels of screening adherence for a status quo scenario and for an increased mt-sDNA utilization scenario, from the IDN and payer perspectives. The IDN perspective included CRC screening program costs, whereas the payer perspective did not. Conversely, stool-based screening test and bowel preparation costs were unique to the payer perspective.

RESULTS

The increased mt-sDNA scenarios yielded cost savings relative to the status quo under all adherence scenarios due to a decrease in screening and surveillance colonoscopies. For ages 50-75, in high and low adherence scenarios, savings were $19.8 M ($0.16 per-person-per-month (PPPM)) and $33.3 M ($0.28 PPPM) from the IDN perspective. From the payer perspective, savings were $4.2 M ($0.03 PPPM) and $6.7 M ($0.06 PPPM). For ages 45-75, in high and low adherence scenarios, cost savings were $19.3 M ($0.16 PPPM) and $33.0 M ($0.28 PPPM) from the IDN perspective and $3.9 M ($0.03 PPPM) and $6.2 M ($0.05 PPPM) from the payer perspective. In all imperfect adherence scenarios, the degree of cost-savings with increased mt-sDNA utilization correlated with the aggregate decrease in screening and surveillance colonoscopies.

LIMITATIONS

Estimates of real-world adherence levels were based on cross-sectional screening data from the literature, and assumptions were applied to individual screening modalities and screening scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all adherence scenarios, perspectives, and age ranges, increased mt-sDNA utilization yielded cost-savings.

Preventing Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Deaths: Assessing the Impact of Increased Screening

Introduction

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends select preventive clinical services, including cancer screening. However, screening for cancers remains underutilized in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leads initiatives to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We assessed the number of avoidable deaths from increased screening, according to USPSTF recommendations, for CRC and female breast and cervical cancers.

Methods

We used model-based estimates of avoidable deaths for the lifetime of single-year age cohorts under the current and increased use of screening scenarios (data year 2016; analysis, 2018). We calculated prevented cancer deaths for each 1% increase in screening uptake and extrapolated to current level of screening (2016), current level plus 10 percentage points, and increasing screening to 90% and 100% of the eligible population.

Results

Increased use of screening from current levels to 100% would prevent an additional 2,821 deaths from breast cancer, 6,834 deaths from cervical cancer, and 35,530 deaths from CRC over a lifetime of the respective single-year cohort. Increasing use of CRC screening would prevent approximately 8.5 times as many deaths as the equivalent increase in use of breast cancer screening (women only), although twice as many people (men and women) would have to be screened for CRC.

Conclusions

A large number of deaths could be avoided by increasing breast, cervical, and CRC screening. Public health programs incorporating strategies shown to be effective can help increase screening rates.

Cost and Effectiveness of Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Rural Federally Qualified Health Centers in West Virginia

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Virginia Program to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in implementing patient reminders to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates in nine federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Using process measures and cost data collected, the authors examined the differences in the intensity of the phone calls across FQHCs and compared them with the return rates achieved. They also reported the cost per kit successfully returned as a result of the intervention. Across all FQHCs, 5,041 FIT kits were ordered, and the initial return rate (without a reminder) was 41.1%. A total of 2,201 patients received reminder phone calls; on average, patients received 1.61 reminder calls each. The reminder interventions increased the average FIT kit return rate to 60.7%. The average total cost per FIT kit returned across all FQHCs was $60.18, and the average cost of only the reminders was $11.20 per FIT kit returned. FQHCs achieved an average increase of 19.6 percentage points in FIT kit return rates, and costs across clinics varied. Clinics with high-quality health information systems that enabled tracking of patients with minimal effort were able to implement lower cost reminder interventions.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the Medicaid population

BACKGROUND

Mailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit.

METHODS

The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty.

RESULTS

The anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened.

CONCLUSIONS

The reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.

Risk Stratification Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: From Logistic Regression to Artificial Intelligence

Risk stratification is a system by which clinically meaningful separation of risk is achieved in a group of otherwise similar persons. Although parametric logistic regression dominates risk prediction, use of nonparametric and semiparametric methods, including artificial neural networks, is increasing. These statistical-learning and machine-learning methods, along with simple rules, are collectively referred to as "artificial intelligence" (AI). AI requires knowledge of study validity, understanding of model metrics, and determination of whether and to what extent the model can and should be applied to the patient or population under consideration. Further investigation is needed, especially in model validation and impact assessment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits and costs of different interventions to inform decision makers. Alternatives are compared based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been performed. Although regional epidemiology of CRC, relevant screening strategies, regional health system, and applicable medical costs in local currencies differ by country and region, several overarching points emerge from literature on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis informs decisions in ongoing debates, including preferred age to begin average-risk CRC screening, and implementation of CRC screening tailored to predicted CRC risk.

Costs of Two Health Insurance Plan Programs to Mail Fecal Immunochemical Tests to Medicare and Medicaid Plan Members

BeneFIT is a 4-year observational study of a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans in Oregon and Washington. In Health Plan Oregon's (HPO) collaborative model, HPO mails FITs that enrollees return to their clinics for processing. In Health Plan Washington's (HPW) centralized model, FITs are mailed directly to enrollees who return them to a centralized laboratory. This paper examines model-specific Year 1 development and implementation costs and estimates costs per screened enrollee. Staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets. Non-labor costs were from study and external data. Data matched each plan's 2016 development and implementation dates. HPO development costs were $23.0K, primarily administration (eg, clinic recruitment). HPW development costs were $37.3K, 38.8% for FIT selection and mailing/tracking protocols. Year 1 implementation costs were $51.6K for HPO and $139.7K for HPW, reflecting HPW's greater outreach. Labor was 50.4% ($26.0K) of HPO's implementation costs, primarily enrollee eligibility and processing returned FITs, and was shared by HPO ($17.0K) and 6 participating clinics ($9.0K). Labor was 10.5% of HPW's implementation costs, primarily administration and enrollee eligibility. HPO's implementation costs per enrollee were 12.3% higher ($18.36) than for HPW ($16.34). Similar proportions of completed FITs among screening-eligibles produced a 15% lower cost per completed FIT in HPW ($89.75) vs. HPO ($105.79). Implementation costs for HPO only (without clinic costs) were $15.16/mailed introductory letter, $16.09/mailed FIT, and $87.35/completed FIT, comparable to HPW. Results highlight cost implications of different approaches to implementing a mailed FIT program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans.

Projecting total costs and health consequences of increasing mt-sDNA utilization for colorectal cancer screening from the payer and integrated delivery network perspectives

Aims: To evaluate total costs and health consequences of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program with colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), and expanded use of multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) from the perspectives of Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs) and payers in the United States.Materials and methods: We developed a budget impact and cost-consequence model that simulates CRC screening for eligible 50- to 75-year-old adults. A status quo scenario and an increased mt-sDNA scenario were modeled. The status quo includes the current screening mix of colonoscopy (83%), FIT (11%), and mt-sDNA (6%) modalities. The increased mt-sDNA scenario increases mt-sDNA utilization to 28% over 10 years. Costs for both the IDN and the payer perspectives incorporated diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies, adverse events (AEs), and CRC treatment. The IDN perspective included screening program costs, composed of direct nonmedical (e.g. patient navigation) and indirect (e.g. administration) costs. It was assumed that IDNs do not incur the costs for stool-based screening tests or bowel preparation for colonoscopies.Results: In a population of one million covered lives, the 10-year incremental cost savings incurred by increasing mt-sDNA utilization was $16.2 M for the IDN and $3.3 M for the payer. The incremental savings per-person-per-month were $0.14 and $0.03 for the IDN and payer, respectively. For both perspectives, increased diagnostic colonoscopy costs were offset by reductions in screening colonoscopies, surveillance colonoscopies, and AEs. Extending screening eligibility to 45- to 75-year-olds slightly decreased the overall cost savings.Limitations: The natural history of CRC was not simulated; however, many of the utilized parameters were extracted from highly vetted natural history models or published literature. Direct nonmedical and indirect costs for CRC screening programs are applied on a per-person-per modality basis, whereas in reality some of these costs may be fixed.Conclusions: Increased mt-sDNA utilization leads to fewer colonoscopies, less AEs, and lower overall costs for both IDNs and payers, reducing overall screening program costs and increasing the number of cancers detected while maintaining screening adherence rates over 10 years.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy are the most commonly used strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening worldwide. We aimed to compare their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in CRC screening in an average-risk population.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Risk ratio (RR) was used to evaluate the differences in detection rates of colorectal neoplasia between FIT and colonoscopy groups. A random-effects model was used to pool RRs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies were included. The participation rate in the FIT group was higher than that in the colonoscopy group (41.6% vs 21.9%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, FIT had a detection rate of CRC comparable with colonoscopy (RR, .73; 95% confidence interval, .37-1.42) and lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Most included cost-effectiveness studies showed that annual (13/15) or biennial (5/6) FIT was cost-saving (ICER < $0) or very cost-effective ($0 < ICER ≤ $25000/quality-adjusted life-year) compared with colonoscopy every 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT may be similar to 1-time colonoscopy in the detection rate of CRC, although it has lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Furthermore, annual or biennial FIT appears to be very cost-effective or cost-saving compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. These findings indicate, at least partly, that FIT is noninferior to colonoscopy in CRC screening in an average-risk population. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Widespread screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has reduced its incidence and mortality. Previous studies investigated the economic effects of CRC screening. We performed a systematic review to provide up-to-date evidence of the cost effectiveness of CRC screening strategies by answering 3 research questions.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Social Sciences Citation Index (via the Web of Science), EconLit (American Economic Association) and 3 supplemental databases for original articles published in English from January 2010 through December 2017. All monetary values were converted to US dollars (year 2016). For all research questions, we extracted, or calculated (if necessary), per-person costs and life years (LYs) and/or quality-adjusted LYs, as well as the incremental costs per LY gained or quality-adjusted LY gained compared with the baseline strategy. A cost-saving strategy was defined as one that was less costly and equally or more effective than the baseline strategy. The net monetary benefit approach was used to answer research question 2.

RESULTS

Our review comprised 33 studies (17 from Europe, 11 from North America, 4 from Asia, and 1 from Australia). Annual and biennial guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests, annual and biennial fecal immunochemical tests, colonoscopy every 10 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years were cost effective (even cost saving in most US models) compared to no screening. In addition, colonoscopy every 10 years was less costly and/or more effective than other common strategies in the United States. Newer strategies such as computed tomographic colonography, every 5 or 10 years, was cost effective compared with no screening.

CONCLUSIONS

In an updated review, we found that common CRC screening strategies and computed tomographic colonography continued to be cost effective compared to no screening. There were discrepancies among studies from different regions, which could be associated with the model types or model assumptions.

Developing a Web-Based Cost Assessment Tool for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs

Introduction

We developed a web-based cost assessment tool (CAT) to collect cost data as an improvement from a desktop instrument to perform economic evaluations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees. We describe the development of the web-based CAT, evaluate the quality of the data obtained, and discuss lessons learned.

Methods

We developed and refined a web-based CAT to collect 5 years (2009–2014) of cost data from 29 CRCCP grantees. We analyzed funding distribution; costs by budget categories; distribution of costs related to screening promotion, screening provision, and overarching activities; and reporting of screenings for grantees that received funding from non-CDC sources compared with those grantees that did not.

Results

CDC provided 85.6% of the resources for the CRCCP, with smaller amounts from in-kind contributions (7.8%), and funding from other sources (6.6%) (eg, state funding). Grantees allocated, on average, 95% of their expenditures to specific program activities and 5% to other activities. Some non-CDC funds were used to provide screening tests to additional people, and these additional screens were captured in the CAT.

Conclusion

A web-based tool can be successfully used to collect cost data on expenditures associated with CRCCP activities. Areas for future refinement include how to collect and allocate dollars from other sources in addition to CDC dollars.

Comparison of Program Resources Required for Colonoscopy and Fecal Screening: Findings From 5 Years of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program

Introduction

Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests.

Methods

We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009–2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used.

Results

Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses.

Conclusion

Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

Identifying optimal approaches to scale up colorectal cancer screening: an overview of the centers for disease control and prevention (CDC)'s learning laboratory

Use of recommended screening tests can reduce new colorectal cancers (CRC) and deaths, but screening uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a second round of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2015 to increase screening rates among individuals aged 50-75 years. The 30 state, university, and tribal awardees supported by the CRCCP implement a range of multicomponent interventions targeting health systems that have low CRC screening uptake, including low-income and minority populations. CDC invited a select subset of 16 CRCCP awardees to form a learning laboratory with the goal of performing targeted evaluations to identify optimal approaches to scale-up interventions to increase uptake of CRC screening among vulnerable populations. This commentary provides an overview of the CRCCP learning laboratory, presents findings from the implementation of multicomponent interventions at four FQHCs participating in the learning laboratory, and summarizes key lessons learned on intervention implementation approaches. Lessons learned can support future program implementation to ensure scalability and sustainability of the interventions as well as guide future implementation science and evaluation studies conducted by the CRCCP learning laboratory.

Economic assessment of patient navigation to colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening in the real-world setting at the University of Chicago Medical Center

BACKGROUND

This report details the cost effectiveness of a non-nurse patient navigation (PN) program that was implemented at the University of Chicago Medical Center to increase colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

The authors investigated the impact of the PN intervention by collecting process measures. Individuals who received navigation were compared with a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. In addition, a previously validated data-collection instrument was tailored and used to collect all costs related to developing, implementing, and administering the program; and the incremental cost per patient successfully navigated (the cost of the intervention divided by the change in the number who complete screening) was calculated.

RESULTS

The screening colonoscopy completion rate was 85.1% among those who were selected to receive PN compared with 74.3% when no navigation was implemented. With navigation, the proportion of no-shows was 8.2% compared with 15.4% of a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. Because the perceived risk of noncompletion was greater among those who received PN (previous no-show or cancellation, poor bowel preparation) than that in the historic cohort, a scenario analysis was performed. Assuming no-show rates between 0% and 50% and using a navigated rate of 85%, the total incremental program cost per patient successfully navigated ranged from $148 to $359, whereas the incremental intervention-only implementation cost ranged from $88 to $215.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings indicate that non-nurse PN can increase colonoscopy completion, and this can be achieved at a minimal incremental cost for an insured population at an urban academic medical center.

Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review

Patient navigation has expanded as a promising approach to improve cancer care coordination and patient adherence. This paper addresses the need to identify the evidence on the economic impact of patient navigation in colorectal cancer, following the Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines. Articles indexed in Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science between January 2000 and March 2017 were analyzed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Inclusion criteria indicated that the paper's subject had to explicitly address patient navigation in colorectal cancer and the study had to be an economic evaluation. The search yielded 243 papers, 9 of which were finally included within this review. Seven out of the nine studies included met standards for high-quality based on CHEERS criteria. Eight concluded that patient navigation programs were unequivocally cost-effective for the health outcomes of interest. Six studies were cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies computed the direct costs of the program, which were defined a minima as the program costs. Eight of the reviewed studies adopted the healthcare system perspective. Direct medical costs were usually divided into outpatient and inpatient visits, tests, and diagnostics. Effectiveness outcomes were mainly assessed through screening adherence, quality of life and time to diagnostic resolution. Given these outcomes, more economic research is needed for patient navigation during cancer treatment and survivorship as well as for patient navigation for other cancer types so that decision makers better understand costs and benefits for heterogeneous patient navigation programs.

Primary care visit use after positive fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

For some patients, positive cancer screening test results can be a stressful experience that can affect future screening compliance and increase the use of health care services unrelated to medically indicated follow-up.

METHODS

Among 483,216 individuals aged 50 to 75 years who completed a fecal immunochemical test to screen for colorectal cancer at a large integrated health care setting between 2007 and 2011, the authors evaluated whether a positive test was associated with a net change in outpatient primary care visit use within the year after screening. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between test result group and net changes in primary care visits after fecal immunochemical testing.

RESULTS

In the year after the fecal immunochemical test, use increased by 0.60 clinic visits for patients with true-positive results. The absolute change in visits was largest (3.00) among individuals with positive test results who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, but significant small increases also were found for patients treated with polypectomy and who had no neoplasia (0.36) and those with a normal examination and no polypectomy performed (0.17). Groups of patients who demonstrated an increase in net visit use compared with the true-negative group included patients with true-positive results (odds ratio [OR], 1.60; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.54-1.66), and positive groups with a colorectal cancer diagnosis (OR, 7.19; 95% CI, 6.12-8.44), polypectomy/no neoplasia (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.48), and normal examination/no polypectomy (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the large size of outreach programs, these small changes can cumulatively generate thousands of excess visits and have a substantial impact on total health care use. Therefore, these changes should be included in colorectal cancer screening cost models and their causes investigated further. Cancer 2017;123:3744-3753. © 2017 American Cancer Society.