Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography or fecal blood tests

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Europe: Have Studies Included Optimal Screening Intensities?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the range of strategies analysed in European cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with respect to the screening intervals, age ranges and test cut-offs used to define positivity, to examine how this might influence what strategies are found to be optimal, and compare them with the current screening policies with a focus on the screening interval.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for peer-reviewed, model-based CEAs of CRC screening. We included studies on average-risk European populations using the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or faecal immunochemical test (FIT). We adapted Drummond's ten-point checklist to appraise study quality.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Biennial screening was the most frequently used interval which was analysed in 37 studies. Annual screening was assessed in 13 studies, all of which found it optimally cost-effective. Despite this, 25 of 26 European stool-based programmes use biennial screening. Many CEAs did not vary the age range, but the 14 that did generally found broader ranges optimal. Only 11 studies considered alternative FIT cut-offs, 9 of which found lower cut-offs superior. Conflicts between current policy and CEA evidence are less clear regarding age ranges and cut-offs.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing CEA evidence indicates that the widely adopted biennial frequency of stool-based testing in Europe is suboptimal. It is likely that many more lives could be saved throughout Europe if programmes could be offered with more intensive annual screening.

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.

Critical Analysis of Markov Models Used for the Economic Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening is challenging because of the need to model the underlying unobservable natural history of the disease.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the available Markov models and to critically analyze their main structural assumptions.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in eight relevant databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Econlit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, Health Technology Assessment database, Cost-Effective Analysis Registry, and European Network of Health Economics Evaluation Databases), identifying 34 models that met the inclusion criteria. A comparative analysis of model structure and parameterization was conducted using two checklists and guidelines for cost-effectiveness screening models.

RESULTS

Two modeling techniques were identified. One strategy used a Markov model to reproduce the natural history of the disease and an overlaying model that reproduced the screening process, whereas the other used a single model to represent a screening program. Most of the studies included only adenoma-carcinoma sequences, a few included de novo cancer, and none included the serrated pathway. Parameterization of adenoma dwell time, sojourn time, and surveillance differed between studies, and there was a lack of validation and statistical calibration against local epidemiological data. Most of the studies analyzed failed to perform an adequate literature review and synthesis of diagnostic accuracy properties of the screening tests modeled.

CONCLUSIONS

Several strategies to model colorectal cancer screening have been developed, but many challenges remain to adequately represent the natural history of the disease and the screening process. Structural uncertainty analysis could be a useful strategy for understanding the impact of the assumptions of different models on cost-effectiveness results.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of a population-based screening program for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer mortality in Belgium. In Flanders (Belgium), a population-based screening program with a biennial immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) in women and men aged 56-74 has been organised since 2013. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the colorectal population-based screening program in Flanders (Belgium).

METHODS

A health economic model was conducted, consisting of a decision tree simulating the screening process and a Markov model, with a time horizon of 20years, simulating natural progression. Predicted mortality and incidence, total costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with and without the screening program were calculated in order to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CRC screening. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, taking into account uncertainty of the model parameters.

RESULTS

Mortality and incidence were predicted to decrease over 20years. The colorectal screening program in Flanders is found to be cost-effective with an ICER of 1681/QALY (95% CI -1317 to 6601) in males and €4,484/QALY (95% CI -3254 to 18,163). The probability of being cost-effective given a threshold of €35,000/QALY was 100% and 97.3%, respectively. The budget impact analysis showed the extra cost for the health care payer to be limited.

CONCLUSION

This health economic analysis has shown that despite the possible adverse effects of screening and the extra costs for the health care payer and the patient, the population-based screening program for CRC in Flanders is cost-effective and should therefore be maintained.

Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of CT colonography

Colorectal cancer, which is the third most frequent cancer and the cancer with the second highest mortality rate, frequently develops on a pre-existing adenomatous polyps whose slow growth and malignant degeneration can be identified and controlled by effective screening. Although most lesions can be detected and resected during optical colonoscopy (OC), the cost, risk and poor acceptance of this technique by the general population means that it is reserved for high-risk or very high-risk individuals. The fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (such as the Hemoccult(®)) is proposed for intermediate-risk individuals between 50 and 75 years old. However, despite the improvements that have been made in this method, sensitivity is low, and although it is simple, it is too rarely used. CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) is proposed in case of failure, additional risk factors or refusal of optical colonoscopy in high-risk patients or in the presence of a positive FOBT. It should also be proposed as an alternative to the FOBT test to patients who accept the constraints of this technique.

Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer

This paper aims to systematically review the cost-effectiveness evidence, and to provide a critical appraisal of the methods used in the model-based economic evaluation of CRC screening and subsequent surveillance. A search strategy was developed to capture relevant evidence published 1999-November 2012. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation (NHS EED), EconLit, and HTA. Full economic evaluations that considered costs and health outcomes of relevant intervention were included. Sixty-eight studies which used either cohort simulation or individual-level simulation were included. Follow-up strategies were mostly embedded in the screening model. Approximately 195 comparisons were made across different modalities; however, strategies modelled were often simplified due to insufficient evidence and comparators chosen insufficiently reflected current practice/recommendations. Studies used up-to-date evidence on the diagnostic test performance combined with outdated information on CRC treatments. Quality of life relating to follow-up surveillance is rare. Quality of life relating to CRC disease states was largely taken from a single study. Some studies omitted to say how identified adenomas or CRC were managed. Besides deterministic sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken in some studies, but the distributions used for PSA were rarely reported or justified. The cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies among people with confirmed adenomas are warranted in aiding evidence-informed decision making in response to the rapidly evolving technologies and rising expectations.

Cost-effectiveness of CT colonography

Simulation modeling is extensively applied to CT colonography (CTC) to define its long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. CTC is effective in reducing CRC incidence and mortality (40%-77% and 58%-84%, respectively). Several factors may explain this variability. CTC is cost-effective compared with no screening, indicating that it represents an attractive test noncompliance with the available options. CTC needs to achieve a higher attendance rate or cost less than colonoscopy to be cost-effective relative to colonoscopy. Fortunately, both conditions appear to be achievable if CTC becomes a widely utilized and reimbursed screening tool.

Management of subcentimetric polyps detected by CT colonography

The advent of CT colonography (CTC) has generated conservative policies for the management of diminutive (<5 mm) and small (6-9 mm) polyps to prevent inefficient duplication of screening tests. The effect of not referring subcentimetric polyps for polypectomy on the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening is still uncertain but depends on the natural history of diminutive and small polyps, as well as on the distribution of advanced neoplasia within these lesions. Simulation modelling enables the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of conservative strategies for the management of subcentimetric lesions to be tested (such as nonreferral to polypectomy for diminutive polyps and early CTC surveillance for small polyps). These policies might be further refined by the inclusion of patient and polyp-related predictive factors for advanced neoplasia, enabling a patient-tailored approach for the management of these lesions.

Randomized controlled trial evaluating participation and yield of colonoscopy versus CT colonography screening

Colorectal cancer is a common yet preventable condition. Population screening attempts suffer from a lack of widespread participation with the currently available options. Computerized tomography colonography (CTC) represents a promising addition to the screening armamentarium. CTC is less invasive than optical colonoscopy but has been shown to be equivalent to colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia, which represents the primary target of screening and prevention. Although CTC has generally been preferred over colonoscopy by patients in most published studies, little hard evidence exists regarding the level of increase in screening participation related to CTC. The landmark trial under discussion adds key data in terms of participation rates for CTC screening relative to colonoscopy screening.

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography colonography in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The European Code Against Cancer recommends individuals aged ≥ 50 should participate in colorectal cancer screening. CT-colonography (CTC) is one of several screening tests available. We systematically reviewed evidence on, and identified key factors influencing, cost-effectiveness of CTC screening.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane library were searched for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of CTC-based screening, published in English, January 1999 to July 2010. Data was abstracted on setting, model type and horizon, screening scenario(s), comparator(s), participants, uptake, CTC performance and cost, effectiveness, ICERs, and whether extra-colonic findings and medical complications were considered.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified from the United States (n = 11), Canada (n = 2), and France, Italy, and the United Kingdom (1 each). Markov state-transition (n = 14) or microsimulation (n = 2) models were used. Eleven considered direct medical costs only; five included indirect costs. Fourteen compared CTC with no screening; fourteen compared CTC with colonoscopy-based screening; fewer compared CTC with sigmoidoscopy (8) or fecal tests (4). Outcomes assessed were life-years gained/saved (13), QALYs (2), or both (1). Three considered extra-colonic findings; seven considered complications. CTC appeared cost-effective versus no screening and, in general, flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing. Results were mixed comparing CTC to colonoscopy. Parameters most influencing cost-effectiveness included: CTC costs, screening uptake, threshold for polyp referral, and extra-colonic findings.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on cost-effectiveness of CTC screening is heterogeneous, due largely to between-study differences in comparators and parameter values. Future studies should: compare CTC with currently favored tests, especially fecal immunochemical tests; consider extra-colonic findings; and conduct comprehensive sensitivity analyses.

The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography

Objective

To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR).

Material and methods

A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval.

Results

The panel elaborated 86 statements.

In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement.

Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting.

Conclusion

The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating.

Key Points

• Computed tomographic colonography is the optimal radiological method of assessing the colon

• This article reviews ESGAR quality standards for CT colonography

• This article is aimed to provide CT-colonography guidelines for practising radiologists

• The recommendations should help radiologists who are starting/updating their CTC services

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography or fecal blood tests

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using computed tomography colonography (CTC) and immunological fecal occult blood test (iFOBT).

METHODS

CTC and iFOBT strategies were compared with Nn screening or guaiac FOBT (gFOBT) using Markov modeling. CTC was proposed at 50, 60, and 70 years, whereas gFOBT and iFOBT were performed every 2 years beginning at 50 years until 74 years of age with a 30-year time horizon. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and efficiency ratios (ERs). Then, we performed univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

With gFOBT as reference, colorectal cancer prevention rate was 18% for CTC and 11% for iFOBT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTC and iFOBT were respectively 3204 and 5458 euro per life years gained (LYG), the ER for CTC was 0.22 and the ER for iFOBT was 2.08 colonoscopies per LYG. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to CTC cost. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, compared with CTC, iFOBT strategy was cost-effective for 84.6% of simulations when we assumed a willingness to pay (WTP) of 20,000 euro/LYG.

CONCLUSION

CTC requires substantially less colonoscopies than iFOBT and is cost-effective for low values of WTP. However, iFOBT is the preferred screening strategy for a WTP greater than 6207 euro/LYG.