An Observational Analysis of a Novel Digital Rectoscope

BACKGROUND

This is an analysis of the first 50 in-human uses of a novel digital rigid sigmoidoscope. The technology provides digital image capture, telemedicine capabilities, improved ergonomics, and the ability to biopsy under pneumorectum while maintaining the low cost of conventional rigid sigmoidoscopy. The primary outcome was adverse events, and the secondary outcome was diagnostic view.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent outpatient (n = 25) and surgical rectal assessment (n = 25), with a mean age of 60 years. This included 31 men and 19 women with 12 different clinical use indications. No adverse events were reported, and no defects were reported with the instrumentation. Satisfactory diagnoses were obtained in 48 (96%) of 50 uses, images were captured in 48 (96%) of 50 uses, and biopsies were successfully taken in 13 uses (26%). No adverse events were recorded. Independent reviewers of recorded videos agreed on the quality and diagnostic value of the images with a κ of 0.225 (95% CI, 0.144-0.305) when assessing whether the target pathology was adequately visualized.

IMPACT OF INNOVATION

The improved views afforded by digital rectoscopy facilitated a satisfactory clinical diagnosis in 96% of uses. The device was successfully deployed in the operating room and outpatients irrespective of bowel preparation method, where it has the potential to replace flexible sigmoidoscopy for specific use cases. The technology provides a high-quality image and video that can be securely recorded for documentation and medicolegal purposes with agreement between blinded users despite a lack of standardized training and heterogenous pathology. We perceive significant impact of this technology for the assessment of colorectal anastomoses, the office management of colitis, "watch and wait," and for diagnostic support in rectal cancer diagnosis. The technology has significant potential to facilitate proctoring and training, and it now requires prospective trials to validate its diagnostic accuracy against more costly flexible sigmoidoscopy systems.

Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has proven effective in reducing CRC mortality. This study aimed to systematically review, and evaluate the reporting quality, of the economic evidence regarding CRC screening in average-risk individuals.

Methods

Databases searched included Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry, EconLit, and Health Technology Assessment database. Eligible studies were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses comparing CRC screening strategies in average-risk individuals, published in English or Spanish, between January 2012 and November 2018. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

Of 1,993 publications initially retrieved, 477 were excluded by duplicate review, 1,449 by title/abstract review, and 34 by full-text review. Finally, 33 publications were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most studies were conducted in Europe (36,4%), followed by United States (24,2%) and Asia (24,2%). The main screening modalities considered were fecal immunochemical tests (70%), colonoscopy (67%), guaiac fecal occult blood test (42%) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (30%). In most studies, CRC screening was deemed cost-effective compared to no screening. Sensitivity analyses indicated that cost of CRC screening tests, adherence to screening, screening test sensitivity, and cost of CRC treatment had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results across studies. The majority of studies (73%) adequately reported at least 50% of the items included in the CHEERS checklist. Least well reported items included setting, study perspective, discount rate, model choice, and methods to identify effectiveness data or to estimate resource use and costs.

Conclusions

CRC screening is an efficient alternative to no screening. Nevertheless, it is not possible to conclude which strategy should be preferred for population-based screening programs. Although we observed an overall good adherence to CHEERS recommendations, there is still room for improvement in economic evaluations reporting in this field.

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates - A Modeling Study

Background

Inadequate bowel preparation during screening colonoscopy necessitates repeating colonoscopy. Studies suggest inadequate bowel preparation rates of 20–60%. This increases the cost of colonoscopy for our society.

Aim

The aim of this study is to determine the impact of inadequate bowel preparation rate on the cost effectiveness of colonoscopy compared to other screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

A microsimulation model of CRC screening strategies for the general population at average risk for CRC. The strategies include fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) every year, colonoscopy every ten years, sigmoidoscopy every five years, or stool DNA test every 3 years. The screening could be performed at private practice offices, outpatient hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers.

Results

At the current assumed inadequate bowel preparation rate of 25%, the cost of colonoscopy as a screening strategy is above society’s willingness to pay (<$50,000/QALY). Threshold analysis demonstrated that an inadequate bowel preparation rate of 13% or less is necessary before colonoscopy is considered more cost effective than FIT. At inadequate bowel preparation rates of 25%, colonoscopy is still more cost effective compared to sigmoidoscopy and stool DNA test. Sensitivity analysis of all inputs adjusted by ±10% showed incremental cost effectiveness ratio values were influenced most by the specificity, adherence, and sensitivity of FIT and colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Screening colonoscopy is not a cost effective strategy when compared with fecal immunochemical test, as long as the inadequate bowel preparation rate is greater than 13%.

Screening for colorectal cancer: spoiled for choice?

There are many different potential screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) that vary both in the likely magnitude of their benefits on CRC mortality and their impact on health services. Many approaches to CRC screening are cost-effective, but there is substantial uncertainty about the optimal approach. Decision models using Markov or microsimulation modelling that compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies are useful in this regard. We have reviewed recent decision models that compare the cost-effectiveness of one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with immunochemical faecal occult blood (FIT) based screening. Models consistently show that any population-based screening is cost-effective compared with no screening, and that FIT-based screening is more effective than one-off sigmoidoscopy screening. The combination of one-off sigmoidoscopy with FIT is more effective in saving lives than either modality alone, but has the greatest impact on health service resources. The recent decision to proceed with biennial FIT-based screening is consistent with current evidence.

Population screening for colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. A single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening at around the age of 60 years prevents about one-third of CRC cases. However, FS screens only the distal colon, and thus mortality from proximal CRC is unaffected. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a highly accurate examination that allows assessment of the entire colon. However, the benefit of CTC testing as a CRC screening test is uncertain. We designed a randomized trial to compare participation rate, detection rates, and costs between CTC (with computer-aided detection) and FS as primary tests for population-based screening.

METHODS/DESIGN

An invitation letter to participate in a randomized screening trial comparing CTC versus FS will be mailed to a sample of 20,000 people aged 58 or 60 years, living in the Piedmont region and the Verona district of Italy. Individuals with a history of CRC, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or recent colonoscopy, or with two first-degree relatives with CRC will be excluded from the study by their general practitioners. Individuals responding positively to the invitation letter will be then randomized to the intervention group (CTC) or control group (FS), and scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome parameter of this part of the trial is the difference in advanced neoplasia detection between the two screening tests. Secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness analysis, referral rates for colonoscopy induced by CTC versus FS, and the expected and perceived burden of the procedures. To compare participation rates for CTC versus FS, 2,000 additional eligible subjects will be randomly assigned to receive an invitation for screening with CTC or FS. In the CTC arm, non-responders will be offered fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as alternative screening test, while in the FS arm, non-responders will receive an invitation letter to undergo screening with either FOBT or CTC. Data on reasons for participation and non-participation will also be collected.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide reliable information concerning benefits and risks of the adoption of CTC as a mass screening intervention in comparison with FS. The trial will also evaluate the role of computer-aided detection in a screening setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739608.

Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing, faecal immunochemical testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy

BACKGROUND

Several colorectal cancer-screening tests are available, but it is uncertain which provides the best balance of risks and benefits within a screening programme. We evaluated cost-effectiveness of a population-based screening programme in Ireland based on (i) biennial guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) at ages 55-74, with reflex faecal immunochemical testing (FIT); (ii) biennial FIT at ages 55-74; and (iii) once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) at age 60.

METHODS

A state-transition model was used to estimate costs and outcomes for each screening scenario vs no screening. A third party payer perspective was adopted. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

All scenarios would be considered highly cost-effective compared with no screening. The lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER vs no screening euro 589 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained) was found for FSIG, followed by FIT euro 1696) and gFOBT (euro 4428); gFOBT was dominated. Compared with FSIG, FIT was associated with greater gains in QALYs and reductions in lifetime cancer incidence and mortality, but was more costly, required considerably more colonoscopies and resulted in more complications. Results were robust to variations in parameter estimates.

CONCLUSION

Population-based screening based on FIT is expected to result in greater health gains than a policy of gFOBT (with reflex FIT) or once-only FSIG, but would require significantly more colonoscopy resources and result in more individuals experiencing adverse effects. Weighing these advantages and disadvantages presents a considerable challenge to policy makers.

Predictors of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening over time in 11 states

Objectives

We study a cohort of Medicare-insured men and women aged 65+ in the year 2000, who lived in 11 states covered by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries, to better understand various predictors of endoscopic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

Methods

We use multilevel probit regression on two cross-sectional periods (2000–2002, 2003–2005) and include people diagnosed with breast cancer, CRC, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and a reference sample without cancer.

Results

Men are not universally more likely to be screened than women, and African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics are not universally less likely to be screened than whites. Disparities decrease over time, suggesting that whites were first to take advantage of an expansion in Medicare benefits to cover endoscopic screening for CRC. Higher-risk persons had much higher utilization, while older persons and beneficiaries receiving financial assistance for Part B coverage had lower utilization and the gap widened over time.

Conclusions

Screening for CRC in our Medicare-insured sample was less than optimal, and reasons varied considerably across states. Negative managed care spillovers were observed, demonstrating that policy interventions to improve screening rates should reflect local market conditions as well as population diversity.

Cost effectiveness of nurse delivered endoscopy: findings from randomised multi-institution nurse endoscopy trial (MINuET)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost effectiveness of nurses and doctors in performing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

DESIGN

As part of a pragmatic randomised trial, the economic analysis calculated incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and generated cost effectiveness acceptability curves to address uncertainty.

SETTING

23 hospitals in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

67 doctors and 30 nurses, with a total of 1888 patients, from July 2002 to June 2003.

INTERVENTION

Diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy carried out by doctors or nurses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Estimated health gains in QALYs measured with EQ-5D. Probability of cost effectiveness over a range of decision makers' willingness to pay for an additional quality adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

Although differences did not reach traditional levels of significance, patients in the doctor group gained 0.015 QALYs more than those in the nurse group, at an increased cost of about pound56 (euro59, $78) per patient. This yields an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of pound3660 (euro3876, $5097) per QALY. Though there is uncertainty around these results, doctors are probably more cost effective than nurses for plausible values of a QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Though upper gastrointestinal endoscopies and flexible sigmoidoscopies carried out by doctors cost slightly more than those by nurses and improved health outcomes only slightly, our analysis favours endoscopies by doctors. For plausible values of decision makers' willingness to pay for an extra QALY, endoscopy delivered by nurses is unlikely to be cost effective compared with endoscopy delivered by doctors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International standard RCT 82765705.

Are we finally winning the war on cancer?

President Nixon declared what came to be known as the “war on cancer” in 1971 in his State of the Union address. At first the war on cancer went poorly: despite a substantial increase in resources, age-adjusted cancer mortality increased by 8 percent between 1971 and 1990, twice the increase from 1950 through 1971. However, between 1990 and 2004, age-adjusted cancer mortality fell by 13 percent. This drop translates into an increase in life expectancy at birth of half a year—roughly a quarter of the two-year increase in life expectancy over this time period and a third of the increase in life expectancy at age 45. The decline brings cancer mortality to its lowest level in 60 years. In the war on cancer, optimism has replaced pessimism. In this paper, I evaluate the reasons for the reduction in cancer mortality. I highlight three factors as leading to improved survival. Most important is cancer screening: mammography for breast cancer and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer. These technologies have had the largest impact on survival, at relatively moderate cost. Second in importance are personal behaviors, especially the reduction in smoking. Tobacco-related mortality reduction is among the major factors associated with better health, likely at a cost worth paying. Third in importance, and more controversial, are treatment changes. Improvements in surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy have contributed to improved survival for a number of cancers, but at high cost. The major challenge for cancer care in the future is likely to be the balancing act between what we are able to do and what it makes sense to pay for.

Age and distal colonic findings determine the yield of advanced proximal neoplasia in Chinese patients with rectal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few data were available on the optimal diagnostic strategy for Chinese patients with hematochezia. We aimed to evaluate the impact of age and distal colonic findings on the yield of diagnostic strategies in young Chinese patients with hematochezia.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients aged less than 50 years were analyzed using a hypothesized mixed diagnostic strategy to determine the optimal cut-off age for the use of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. The efficacy and cost of the diagnostic strategy and the number of colonoscopies needed to detect one advanced proximal neoplasm (APN) using different cut-off ages were assessed.

RESULTS

In the hypothesized mixed diagnostic strategy for young patients, the sensitivities for the detection of APN were 100%, 92% and 75% if the cut-off ages were 30, 35 and 40 years, respectively. The cost needed to detect one APN would be $US 3155, $US 3179 and $US 3497 if the cut-off ages were 30, 35 and 40 years, respectively. Colonoscopy would be performed in 84%, 69% and 51% of patients if the cut-off ages were 30, 35 and 40 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy should be considered for Chinese patients with rectal bleeding who are aged > or =35 years or those aged <35 years who have adenoma in the distal colon.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions

BACKGROUND

Prior cost-effectiveness models analyzing computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening have assumed that patients with diminutive lesions (<or=5 mm) will be referred to optical colonoscopy (OC) for polypectomy. However, consensus guidelines for CTC recommend reporting only polyps measuring >or=6 mm. The purpose of the current study was to assess the potential harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of CTC screening without the reporting of diminutive lesions compared with other screening strategies.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of screening with CTC (with and without a 6-mm reporting threshold), OC, and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) were evaluated using a Markov model applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 persons age 50 years.

RESULTS

The model predicted an overall cost per life-year gained relative to no screening of $4361, $7138, $7407, and $9180, respectively, for CTC with a 6-mm reporting threshold, CTC with no threshold, FS, and OC. The incremental costs associated with reporting diminutive lesions at the time of CTC amounted to $118,440 per additional life-year gained, whereas the incidence of colorectal cancer was reduced by only 1.3% (from 36.5% to 37.8%). Compared with primary OC screening, CTC with a 6-mm threshold resulted in a 77.6% reduction in invasive endoscopic procedures (39,374 compared with 175,911) and 1112 fewer reported OC-related complications from perforation or bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC with nonreporting of diminutive lesions was found to be the most cost-effective and safest screening option evaluated, thereby providing further support for this approach. Overall, the removal of diminutive lesions appears to carry an unjustified burden of costs and complications relative to the minimal gain in clinical efficacy.

Option appraisal of population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in England

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and resource impact of faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) screening options for colorectal cancer to inform the Department of Health's policy on bowel cancer screening in England.

METHODS

We developed a state transition model to simulate the life experience of a cohort of individuals without polyps or cancer through to the development of adenomatous polyps and malignant carcinoma and subsequent death in the general population of England. The costs, effects and resource impact of five screening options were evaluated: (a) FOBT for individuals aged 50-69 (biennial screening); (b) FOBT for individuals aged 60-69 (biennial screening); (c) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 55; (d) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 60; and (e) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 60, followed by FOBT for individuals aged 61-70 (biennial screening).

RESULTS

The model suggests that screening using FSIG with or without FOBT may be cost-saving and may produce additional benefits compared with a policy of no screening. The marginal cost-effectiveness of FOBT options compared to a policy of no screening is estimated to be below pound3000 per quality adjusted life year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening using FOBT and/or FSIG is potentially a cost-effective strategy for the early detection of colorectal cancer. However, the practical feasibility of alternative screening programmes is inevitably limited by current pressures on endoscopy services.

Colon cancer prevention in Italy: cost-effectiveness analysis with CT colonography and endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of mortality in Italy. Although prevention of CRC is possible, its cost-effectiveness when applied to the Italian population is unknown. Recently, computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has been proposed for CRC screening.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of CTC screening in a simulated Italian population with those of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies was compared using a Markov process computer model, in which in a hypothetical population of 100,000 50 year-olds were investigated by CTC, colonoscopy or FS every decade. Outcomes were projected to the Italian national level.

RESULTS

CRC incidence reduction was calculated at 40.9%, 38.2%, and 31.8% with colonoscopy, CTC and FS, respectively. As compared to no screening, all screening programs were shown to be cost-saving, allowing a saving of 11 Euro, 17 Euro, and 48 Euro per person with colonoscopy, FS and CTC, respectively. FS appeared to be less cost-effective than CTC, whilst colonoscopy appeared to be an expensive option as compared to CTC. Undiscounted national expenditure was calculated to be 1,042,489,512 Euro, 1,093,268,285 Euro, and 1,198,783,428 Euro for FS, CTC and colonoscopy, respectively, as compared to 695,818,078 Euro without screening.

CONCLUSION

CRC screening is cost-saving in Italy, irrespective of the technique applied. CTC appeared to be more cost-effective than FS, and it may also become a valid alternative to colonoscopy.

Relation between Medicare screening reimbursement and stage at diagnosis for older patients with colon cancer

CONTEXT

Medicare's reimbursement policy was changed in 1998 to provide coverage for screening colonoscopies for patients with increased colon cancer risk, and expanded further in 2001 to cover screening colonoscopies for all individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the Medicare reimbursement policy changes were associated with an increase in either colonoscopy use or early stage colon cancer diagnosis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare linked database who were 67 years of age and older and had a primary diagnosis of colon cancer during 1992-2002, as well as a group of Medicare beneficiaries who resided in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results areas but who were not diagnosed with cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Trends in colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy use among Medicare beneficiaries without cancer were assessed using multivariate Poisson regression. Among the patients with cancer, stage was classified as early (stage I) vs all other (stages II-IV). Time was categorized as period 1 (no screening coverage, 1992-1997), period 2 (limited coverage, January 1998-June 2001), and period 3 (universal coverage, July 2001-December 2002). A multivariate logistic regression (outcome = early stage) was used to assess temporal trends in stage at diagnosis; an interaction term between tumor site and time was included.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy use increased from an average rate of 285/100,000 per quarter in period 1 to 889 and 1919/100,000 per quarter in periods 2 (P<.001) and 3 (P vs 2<.001), respectively. During the study period, 44,924 eligible patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. The proportion of patients diagnosed at an early stage increased from 22.5% in period 1 to 25.5% in period 2 and 26.3% in period 3 (P<.001 for each pairwise comparison). The changes in Medicare coverage were strongly associated with early stage at diagnosis for patients with proximal colon lesions (adjusted relative risk period 2 vs 1, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.26; adjusted relative risk period 3 vs 2, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.17) but weakly associated, if at all, for patients with distal colon lesions (adjusted relative risk period 2 vs 1, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.13; adjusted relative risk period 3 vs 2, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Expansion of Medicare reimbursement to cover colon cancer screening was associated with an increased use of colonoscopy for Medicare beneficiaries, and for those who were diagnosed with colon cancer, an increased probability of being diagnosed at an early stage. The selective effect of the coverage change on proximal colon lesions suggests that increased use of whole-colon screening modalities such as colonoscopy may have played a pivotal role.

Screening for colon cancer

Colorectal cancer screening reduces mortality in individuals 50 years and older. Each of the screening tests currently available has advantages and limitations, and there is no consensus as to which test or combination of tests is best. What is clear, however, is that the rates of colorectal cancer screening remain low. This review summarizes the clinical evidence supporting colorectal cancer screening in the average risk population and in high risk groups, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the available screening tests, outlines the currently recommended guidelines for screening based on risk category, and discusses new and emerging technologies for colorectal cancer screening.

What are the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of endoscopy undertaken by nurses when compared with doctors? A Multi-Institution Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET)

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of doctors and nurses undertaking upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

DESIGN

The study was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Zelen's randomisation before consent was used to minimise distortion of existing practice in the participating sites. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial, assessing the relative cost-effectiveness of nurses and doctors.

SETTING

The study was undertaken in 23 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales. In six hospitals nurses undertook both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, yielding a total of 29 'centres'. The study was coordinated and managed from Swansea. Randomisation, data management and analysis were undertaken at York. Analysis was by intention-to-scope.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-seven doctors and 30 nurses took part in the study. Of 4964 potentially eligible patients, 4128 (83%) were randomised. Of these, 1888 (45%) were recruited to the study from 29 July 2002 to 30 June 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

The procedures under study were diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy undertaken by nurses or doctors, with or without sedation, using the preparation, techniques and protocols of participating hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Questionnaire (GSRQ). The secondary outcome measures were EuroQol (EQ5D), Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), cost-effectiveness, immediate and delayed complications, quality of examination by blinded assessment of endoscopic video recordings, quality of procedure reports, patients' preferences for operator 1 year after endoscopy, and new diagnoses at 1 year.

RESULTS

The two groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinical characteristics. Significantly more patients changed from a planned endoscopy by a doctor to a nurse than vice versa, mainly for staffing reasons. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary or secondary outcome measures at 1 day, 1 month or 1 year after endoscopy, with the exception of patient satisfaction at 1 day, which favoured nurses. Nurses were significantly more thorough in the examination of stomach and oesophagus, but no different from doctors in the examination of duodenum and colon. There was no significant difference in costs to the NHS or patients, although doctors cost slightly more. Although quality of life measures showed improvement in some scores in the doctor group, this did not reach traditional levels of statistical significance. Even so, the economic evaluation, taking account of uncertainty in both costs and quality of life, suggests that endoscopy by doctors has an 87% chance of being more cost-effective than endoscopy by nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistically significant difference between doctors and nurses in their clinical effectiveness in diagnostic endoscopy. However, nurses are significantly more thorough in the examination of oesophagus and stomach, and patients are significantly more satisfied after endoscopy by a nurse. Endoscopy by doctors is associated with better outcome at 1 year at higher cost, but overall is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of nurses undertaking a greater role in other settings, to monitor the cost-effectiveness of nurse endoscopists as they become more experienced and to assess, the effect of increasing the number of nurse endoscopists on waiting times for patients, and the career implications and opportunities for nurses who become trained endoscopists. Evaluation of the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic endoscopy for all current indications is also needed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening with stool DNA testing in intermediate-incidence countries

Background

The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of screening with stool DNA testing with that of screening with other tools (annual fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years) or not screening at all.

Methods

We developed a Markov model to evaluate the above screening strategies in the general population 50 to 75 years of age in Taiwan. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of various parameters on the cost-effectiveness of screening. A third-party payer perspective was adopted and the cost of $13,000 per life-year saved (which is roughly the per capita GNP of Taiwan in 2003) was chosen as the ceiling ratio for assessing whether the program is cost-effective.

Results

Stool DNA testing every three, five, and ten years can reduce colorectal cancer mortality by 22%, 15%, and 9%, respectively. The associated incremental costs were $9,794, $9,335, and $7,717, per life-year saved when compared with no screening. Stool DNA testing strategies were the least cost-effective with the cost per stool DNA test, referral rate with diagnostic colonoscopy, prevalence of large adenoma, and discount rate being the most influential parameters.

Conclusion

In countries with a low or intermediate incidence of colorectal cancer, stool DNA testing is less cost-effective than the other currently recommended strategies for population-based screening, particularly targeting at asymptomatic subjects.

Cutting cost and increasing access to colorectal cancer screening: another approach to following the guidelines

CONTEXT

Through medical decision making, physicians in the U.S. influence the spending of >$1.3 trillion or 15% of the gross domestic product. U.S. physicians are challenged to identify areas of clinical practice to improve while cutting cost and increasing access. Primary screening for colorectal cancer is a good example to illustrate this point.

OBJECTIVE

To apply a population-based method of medical decision making in the area of primary screening for colorectal cancer in order to illustrate a reduction in health care costs while increasing access and maintaining quality of care.

DESIGN

We used a combination of (a) census population data, (b) National Cancer Institute Survey data on screening rates, and (c) charge data to estimate the current costs of colorectal cancer screening. We also estimated cost and capacity increases that would occur under various other screening scenarios. These included all currently screened subjects receiving annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), all currently unscreened individuals undergoing either colonoscopy every decade or annual FOBT, and all eligible subjects undergoing annual FOBT.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost and access differences between current screening activity and other potential scenarios compliant with guidelines.

RESULTS

Screening for colorectal cancer with yearly, six-window, rehydrated FOBT for all normal-risk individuals over the age of 50 has the potential to screen 3,813,095 more Americans for colon cancer yearly than are currently being screened, while costing $8.7 billion less per decade than what is currently being spent on screening a fraction of the population. Looking into the future, it is possible to increase screening rates from 50% to 100%, while saving almost $10 billion per decade by using FOBT for all eligible Americans. In practice, some proportion of these benefits would be realized as the calculations assume a 100% patient compliance rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering a population-based approach and the balance among quality, accessibility, and cost parameters, we recommend primary screening for colorectal cancer to be based on yearly six-window, rehydrated FOBT. Colonoscopy due to cost and access issues should be relegated to secondary screening and case finding.

Comparing risks and benefits of colorectal cancer screening in elderly patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In patients with limited life expectancy, the risks of colorectal cancer screening may outweigh the benefits. The aim of this study was to quantify risks and benefits of different screening strategies in elderly patients with varying life expectancies.

METHODS

We examined risks and benefits of screening in patients aged 70-94 years with differing health status using 3 strategies: annual fecal occult blood tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, or colonoscopy every 10 years. We compared the number needed to screen to prevent one cancer-related death and the number needed to encounter one screening-related complication for different strategies.

RESULTS

The potential benefit from screening varied widely with age, life expectancy, and screening modality. One cancer-related death would be prevented by screening 42 healthy men aged 70-74 years with colonoscopy, 178 healthy women aged 70-74 years with fecal occult blood tests, 431 women aged 75-79 years in poor health with colonoscopy, or 945 men aged 80-84 years in average health with fecal occult blood tests. Colonoscopy screening had the greatest benefit but the highest risk of complications. The potential for screening-related complications was greater than estimated benefit in some population subgroups aged 70 years and older. At all ages and life expectancies, the potential reduction in mortality from screening outweighed the risk of colonoscopy-related death.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefits and risks of screening vary in elderly patients of different life expectancies. For any individual patient, the potential for harm from screening must be weighed against the likelihood of benefit, especially with shorter life expectancy.

Market for colorectal cancer screening by endoscopy in the United States

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among all cancer sites in incidence, and second in cancer-related mortality. Although screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality, current screening rates among the average-risk population are low. The traditional way of promoting CRC screening has been to educate healthcare providers and the public on its benefits, available screening procedures, and current guidelines. In this paper, we focus on economics and provide an overview of some key factors that affect the demand for and the supply of CRC screening by endoscopy. Factors affecting the demand for endoscopic CRC screening include the number of people for whom screening is recommended, consumers' income and health insurance status, time and travel costs, prices of non-endoscopic CRC screening tests, and personal preferences and perceived quality of care. Factors influencing the supply of endoscopic screening include the availability of endoscopic providers, increased efficiency, procedure costs, current reimbursement rates for endoscopic procedures, and technical progress. The volume of screening tests in the market is determined jointly by the collective demand and supply decisions of consumers and providers. The discussion includes policy implications for the current effort to promote widespread use of CRC screening in the United States.

Use of preventive services by Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries: does spillover from managed care matter?

BACKGROUND

Health care delivery varies with the level of managed care activity (MCA) in an area, potentially affecting health care for those not participating in managed care programs. However, the extent to which MCA is associated with the use of cancer screening by fee-for-service beneficiaries (FFS) is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to study colorectal cancer screening among Medicare FFS beneficiaries in relation to levels of Medicare MCA.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study linked 1999 Medicare denominator and Part B claims data with the 1998 Area Resource File. After categorizing MCA as low (<10%), moderate (10-29.99%), or high (> or =30%), we assessed the association between colorectal cancer screening among FFS beneficiaries and MCA, controlling for individual demographic variables and county-level attributes of socioeconomic status and physician resources.

SUBJECTS

We included Medicare FFS beneficiaries 65 years of age or older with both Part A and Part B coverage for the entire calendar year from large counties in the study.

MEASURES

We measured the likelihood of undergoing fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FLEX), or colonoscopy (COL).

RESULTS

Compared with Medicare FFS beneficiaries residing in counties with low MCA, those in high MCA counties were significantly more likely to undergo FOBT (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.16), FLEX (AOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.18), or colonoscopy, after receiving FOBT/FLEX (AOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

From a public health perspective, an association between higher levels of MCA and colorectal cancer screening among those not enrolled in managed care may translate into modest increases in use of colorectal cancer screening and possibly earlier detection.

Reduction of clinically manifest colorectal cancer by endoscopic screening: empirical evaluation and comparison of screening at various ages

Endoscopic screening (sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy) with removal of precancerous lesions can prevent a large proportion of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there is lack of data regarding optimal age, time intervals and numbers of screening examinations. We developed and applied modified techniques of epidemiological analysis to evaluate the impact of various endoscopy-based screening strategies on prevention of clinically manifest CRCs between the ages of 50 and 79 in a population-based case-control study (294 cases, 254 controls) conducted in Saarland, Germany. We found a strong potential for reduction of CRC occurrence even with a single screening endoscopy. The optimal age for a single screening endoscopy appears to be around 55 (estimated potential for prevention of cases between the ages of 55 and 79 in case of 100% compliance: 77% (95% confidence interval (CI) 46-90%)). A single screening endoscopy at age 50 would have a lower impact due to failure to prevent CRC at higher ages. Similarly, screening at ages 60 or older would have a lower impact because it would fail to prevent CRC at lower ages. Repeated offers of screening examinations could provide substantial additional benefit with the levels of compliance to be expected in practice, but they would have to be weighed against the increased risks and costs.

The evaluation of rectal bleeding in adults. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four diagnostic strategies

BACKGROUND

Though primary care patients commonly present with rectal bleeding, the optimal evaluation strategy remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of four diagnostic strategies in the evaluation of rectal bleeding.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov decision model.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review of the literature, Medicare reimbursement data, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Cancer Registry.

TARGET POPULATION

Patients over age 40 with otherwise asymptomatic rectal bleeding.

TIME HORIZON

The patient's lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Modified societal perspective.

INTERVENTIONS

Watchful waiting, flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy followed by air contrast barium enema (FS+ACBE), and colonoscopy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for colonoscopy compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy was 5,480 dollars per quality-adjusted year of life saved (QALY). Watchful waiting and FS+ACBE were more expensive and less effective than colonoscopy.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

The cost of colonoscopy was reduced to 1,686 dollars per QALY when age at entry was changed to 45. Watchful waiting became the least expensive strategy when community procedure charges replaced Medicare costs, when age at entry was maximized to 80, or when the prevalence of polyps was lowered to 7%, but the remaining strategies provided greater life expectancy at relatively low cost. The strategy of FS+ACBE remained more expensive and less effective in all analyses. In the remaining sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy never rose above 34,000 dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy is a cost-effective method to evaluate otherwise asymptomatic rectal bleeding, with a low cost per QALY compared to other strategies.

Colorectal cancer screening, 1997-1999: role of income, insurance and policy

BACKGROUND

Receipt of age-appropriate cancer screens can lead to reduced incidence and mortality. Yet, low-income and uninsured experience barriers to screening. This paper examines colorectal cancer rates by income, racial and insured groups 1997 and 1999. These years focus on changes pre/post a 1998 policy change for Medicare beneficiaries that reduced their out-of-pocket costs for colorectal screening.

METHODS

The 1997 and 1999 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey is used to examine changes in age-appropriate fecal-occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy screens. Differences in the odds that Medicare beneficiaries, relative to private insured, receive screens pre/post 1998 are examined using multivariate logit models.

RESULTS

Average rates of sigmoidoscopy increased significantly during 1997-1999 but remain below desired levels. While Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than privately insured to be screened, gaps between low- versus high-income groups in both Medicare and non-Medicare populations remain. The 1998 Medicare policy change was associated with a significant increase in the odds of screening among low-income (<$25,000) Medicare beneficiaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy makers should consider reasons for continued low colorectal screening rates among all insured groups. Barriers such as patient perceptions and physician advice should be considered along with the vulnerability that low income and lack of insurance imposes.

Audit on flexible sigmoidoscopy for rectal bleeding in a district general hospital: are we over-loading the resources?

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rectal bleeding are being over investigated because of the fear of missing colorectal cancers. This study aimed to identify the percentage of patients <45 years of age who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy for rectal bleeding, and to assess and compare the incidence of colorectal cancers and polyps above and below this age.

METHODS

Patients who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy for rectal bleeding between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2002 were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 consisted of patients aged >or=45 years and group 2 patients <45 years. The histopathology of biopsy specimens taken was also studied.

RESULTS

Altogether 18.9% of the patients who had flexible sigmoidoscopy for rectal bleeding were <45 years. The incidence of colorectal cancers in group 1 was 3.5%; all these cases were confirmed on histopathology. Only one patient in group 2 was diagnosed with colorectal cancer on flexible sigmoidoscopy, but the histopathology disproved it. The incidence of polyps was 16.6% in group 1 and 7.9% in group 2. Following histopathology, the incidence of adenomatous polyps was 6.8% in group 1 and 2.1% in group 2. There was a significant difference between the two groups, with a p value of <0.0001.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of colorectal cancers and adenomatous polyps in patients aged <45 years with rectal bleeding is very low. A flexible sigmoidoscopy costs approximately pound 330. If new guidelines are implemented considering the age of the patient, considerable cost savings could be made, and the available resources could be appropriately used in groups with high incidences of colorectal cancers.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in Singapore: a dynamic decision analytic approach

A dynamic decision analytic framework using local statistics and expert's opinions is put to study the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies in Singapore. It is demonstrated that any of the screening strategies, if implemented, would increase the life expectancy of the population of 50 to 70 years old. The model also determined the normal life expectancy of this population to be 76.32 years. Overall, Guaiac Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) is most cost effective at SGD162.11 per life year saved per person. Our approach allowed us to model problem parameters that change over time and study the utility measures like cost and life expectancy for specific age within the range of 50- 69 through to 70 years old.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening: comparison of community-based flexible sigmoidoscopy with fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To determine the cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer using flexible sigmoidoscopy once every 10 years, compared with annual and biennial rehydrated Hemoccult fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy once every 10 years, or no screening.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed in order to simulate the progression of a cohort of asymptomatic, average-risk individuals aged 55-64 years who were moving through a defined series of states towards death. The main outcome measures were: cases of colorectal cancer averted, colorectal cancer deaths averted, and cost per life-year saved.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy averted the greatest number of cases of colorectal cancer (35%), followed by flexible sigmoidoscopy (25%), and annual (24%) and biennial (14%) fecal occult blood testing. Colonoscopy averted the greatest number of deaths from colorectal cancer (31%), followed by annual fecal occult blood testing (29%), flexible sigmoidoscopy (21%) and biennial fecal occult blood testing (19%). Flexible sigmoidoscopy was the most efficient in terms of cost per life-year saved (16,801 Australian dollars), followed by colonoscopy (19,285 Australian dollars), biennial (41,183 Australian dollars), and annual (46,900 Australian dollars) fecal occult blood testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are cost-effective strategies for reducing the disease burden of colorectal cancer.

Costs of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer is one of the most commonly occurring cancers in industrialized countries, yet appears to be amenable to screening. Amongst the many possible protocols is once-only screening by means of flexible sigmoidoscopy. This protocol is currently being investigated in a UK multicenter trial and the study provides estimates of the expected resource costs.

METHODS

The direct health care costs of sigmoidoscopy and of all subsequent procedures were estimated from an audit of resource use of approximately 40,000 patients at thirteen centers. Patient-borne costs were estimated from the results of surveys conducted at twelve of these centers.

RESULTS

The health service costs of a flexible sigmoidoscopy was estimated at pounds 56. The total costs of screening (including private costs) averaged pounds 82 per person screened, although costs varied by center. The total health service costs of screening and subsequent management averaged approximately pounds 91 per person screened, again with variations between centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Even within a strict trial protocol, intercenter variation in costs can be detected, ascribable to variability in local management practices, local yield, and local patient-borne costs. Other recent estimates of flexible sigmoidoscopy costs vary widely. As these costs form the basis of technology assessment simulation models which, in turn, inform policy obtaining realistic cost estimates within the appropriate health care setting is of paramount importance.

A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening

Willingness-to-pay (WTP) is being used increasingly in health technology assessment, although a number of methodological issues remain unresolved. Using data obtained from a randomised questionnaire survey, we investigated the metrical properties of two WTP formats, the open-ended question versus the payment scale, in the context of screening for colorectal cancer. Approximately, 2800 responses were analysed. Household income, attitudes toward health promotion and personal risk perceptions were the principal determinants of the nature and value of response. In comparison with the open-ended format, the payment scale achieved a higher completion rate and generated higher valuations. We believe that a framing effect is the most plausible explanation for these differences in performance. In contrast to previous findings, we do not find subjects' perceptions of the resource cost of interventions to be a convincing explanation for either their WTP values or inconsistencies between values and preferences. Although a proportion of respondents protested at the notion of valuation, the majority offer positive valuations, although typically of a lower value that non-protesters.

Baseline findings of the Italian multicenter randomized controlled trial of "once-only sigmoidoscopy"--SCORE

BACKGROUND

A single sigmoidoscopy examination at around age 60 years has been proposed as a cost-effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer. A multicenter randomized controlled trial, the SCORE trial, is in progress in Italy to estimate the impact of this strategy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and the duration of the protective effect. We present the baseline screening outcomes.

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 236 568 people aged 55-64 years to assess their eligibility for and interest in screening. Those reporting a history of colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, recent colorectal endoscopy, or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. Eligible, interested respondents were assigned randomly to the control group (no further contact) or the intervention group (invitation to undergo sigmoidoscopy). Screenees with colorectal cancer, polyps larger than 5 mm, three or more adenomas, adenomas 5 mm or smaller with a villous component of more than 20%, or severe dysplasia were referred for colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Of the 56 532 respondents (23.9% of those invited), 34 292 were enrolled and 17 148 were assigned to the screening group. Of those, 9999 attended and 9911 were actually examined by sigmoidoscopy. Distal adenomas were detected in 1070 subjects (10.8%). Proximal adenomas were detected in 116 of 747 (15.5%) subjects without cancer at sigmoidoscopy who then underwent colonoscopy. A total of 54 subjects was found to have colorectal cancer, a rate of 5.4 per 1000 (54% of which were Dukes' A). The procedures were relatively safe, with two perforations (one in 9911 sigmoidoscopy exams and one in 775 colonoscopies) and one hemorrhage requiring hospitalization after polypectomy during colonoscopy. The pain associated with sigmoidoscopy was described as mild or less than expected by 83.3% of the screenees.

CONCLUSION

Sigmoidoscopy screening is generally acceptable to recipients and safe. The high yield of advanced adenomas is consistent with the projected impact of sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, January 1993 through September 2001.

STUDY SELECTION

Original economic evaluations of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk patients were reviewed. The authors sought studies addressing the incremental cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies compared with no screening, of different screening strategies compared with one another, and of different ages of screening initiation and cessation. Two investigators independently reviewed each abstract, and potentially eligible articles were retrieved. A four-member working group reached consensus regarding final inclusion or exclusion of articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data into evidence tables. The results were checked by other members and discrepancies resolved by consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among 180 potential articles identified, 7 were retained in the final analysis. Compared with no screening, cost-effectiveness ratios for screening with any of the commonly considered methods were generally between 10, 000 dollars and 25, 000 dollars per life-year saved. No one strategy was consistently found to be the most effective or to have the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Currently available models provided insufficient evidence to determine optimal starting and stopping ages for screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for colorectal cancer appears cost-effective compared with no screening, but a single optimal strategy cannot be determined from the currently available data. Additional data regarding adherence with screening over time, complication rates in real-world settings, and colorectal cancer biology are needed. Additional analyses are necessary to determine optimal ages of initiation and cessation.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal neoplasia in average-risk people: evaluation of a five-year rescreening interval

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia detected by rescreening people with average risk five years after initial screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective survey of results of a colorectal cancer screening program.

PARTICIPANTS

People aged 55-64 years with no symptoms or family history of colorectal cancer who were recruited from the community for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening five years previously (July 1995 to December 1996) and had no colorectal neoplasms detected.

SETTING

Fremantle Hospital, Western Australia, a community-based teaching hospital, December 2000 to June 2001.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number and size of colorectal neoplasms (adenomas or cancer) compared between rescreened patients and initial screening population (all 982 people screened between July 1995 and December 1996).

RESULTS

803 people were eligible for rescreening; 138 were no longer at the recorded address, and 361 of the remaining 665 (54%) were rescreened. Rescreening found a significantly lower prevalence of colorectal adenomas than initial screening (8% [95% CI, 5%-11%] versus 14% [95% CI, 13%-15%]; P < 0.05) and also a lower percentage of adenomatous polyps over 5 mm in diameter (32% [95% CI, 15%-49%] versus 51% [95% CI, 46%-56%]; no significant difference).

CONCLUSION

Average-risk people who have been screened for colorectal neoplasms, with none found, have a low prevalence of neoplastic lesions five years later. Longer rescreening intervals need to be considered.