M Parekh1, A M Fendrick, U Ladabaum. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0538, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening and treatment are rapidly evolving. Aims To reappraise stool-based colorectal cancer screening in light of changing test performance characteristics, lower test cost and increasing colorectal cancer care costs. METHODS: Using a Markov model, we compared faecal DNA testing every 3 years, annual faecal occult blood testing or immunochemical testing, and colonoscopy every 10 years. RESULTS: In the base case, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing gained life-years/person and cost less than no screening. Faecal DNA testing version 1.1 at $300 (the current PreGen Plus test) gained 5323 life-years/100 000 persons at $16 900/life-year gained and faecal DNA testing version 2 (enhanced test) gained 5795 life-years/100 000 persons at $15 700/life-year gained vs. no screening. In the base case and most sensitivity analyses, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing were preferred to faecal DNA testing. Faecal DNA testing version 2 cost $100 000/life-year gained vs. faecal immunochemical testing when per-cycle adherence with faecal immunochemical testing was 22%. Faecal immunochemical testing with excellent adherence was superior to colonoscopy every 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: As novel biological therapies increase colorectal cancer treatment costs, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing could become cost-saving. The cost-effectiveness of faecal DNA testing compared with no screening has improved, but faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing are preferred to faecal DNA testing when patient adherence is high. Faecal immunochemical testing may be comparable to colonoscopy every 10 years in persons adhering to yearly testing.
BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer screening and treatment are rapidly evolving. Aims To reappraise stool-based colorectal cancer screening in light of changing test performance characteristics, lower test cost and increasing colorectal cancer care costs. METHODS: Using a Markov model, we compared faecal DNA testing every 3 years, annual faecal occult blood testing or immunochemical testing, and colonoscopy every 10 years. RESULTS: In the base case, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing gained life-years/person and cost less than no screening. Faecal DNA testing version 1.1 at $300 (the current PreGen Plus test) gained 5323 life-years/100 000 persons at $16 900/life-year gained and faecal DNA testing version 2 (enhanced test) gained 5795 life-years/100 000 persons at $15 700/life-year gained vs. no screening. In the base case and most sensitivity analyses, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing were preferred to faecal DNA testing. Faecal DNA testing version 2 cost $100 000/life-year gained vs. faecal immunochemical testing when per-cycle adherence with faecal immunochemical testing was 22%. Faecal immunochemical testing with excellent adherence was superior to colonoscopy every 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: As novel biological therapies increase colorectal cancer treatment costs, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing could become cost-saving. The cost-effectiveness of faecal DNA testing compared with no screening has improved, but faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing are preferred to faecal DNA testing when patient adherence is high. Faecal immunochemical testing may be comparable to colonoscopy every 10 years in persons adhering to yearly testing.
Authors: Duncan Whitney; Joel Skoletsky; Kent Moore; Kevin Boynton; Lisa Kann; Randall Brand; Sapna Syngal; Michael Lawson; Anthony Shuber Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Ann Chao; Cari J Connell; Vilma Cokkinides; Eric J Jacobs; Eugenia E Calle; Michael J Thun Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Trevor Thompson; Jean A Shapiro; Sally W Vernon; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David Cunningham; Yves Humblet; Salvatore Siena; David Khayat; Harry Bleiberg; Armando Santoro; Danny Bets; Matthias Mueser; Andreas Harstrick; Chris Verslype; Ian Chau; Eric Van Cutsem Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Herbert Hurwitz; Louis Fehrenbacher; William Novotny; Thomas Cartwright; John Hainsworth; William Heim; Jordan Berlin; Ari Baron; Susan Griffing; Eric Holmgren; Napoleone Ferrara; Gwen Fyfe; Beth Rogers; Robert Ross; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Leonard B Saltz; Neal J Meropol; Patrick J Loehrer; Michael N Needle; Justin Kopit; Robert J Mayer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Samir Gupta; Daniel A Sussman; Chyke A Doubeni; Daniel S Anderson; Lukejohn Day; Amar R Deshpande; B Joseph Elmunzer; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Jeanette Mendez; Ma Somsouk; James Allison; Taft Bhuket; Zhuo Geng; Beverly B Green; Steven H Itzkowitz; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; S Lucas Goede; Linda J W Bosch; Veerle Melotte; Beatriz Carvalho; Manon van Engeland; Gerrit A Meijer; Harry J de Koning; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Petra Jellema; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; David J Bruinvels; Christian D Mallen; Stijn J B van Weyenberg; Chris J Mulder; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-31
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Elizabeth A Glowinski; David F Ransohoff Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 25.391