Literature DB >> 19048626

At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach.

Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar1, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Ann G Zauber, Rob Boer, Janneke Wilschut, J Dik F Habbema.   

Abstract

The costs of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) are not yet established for screening use. In our study, we estimated the threshold costs for which CTC screening would be a cost-effective alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the general population. We used the MISCAN-colon microsimulation model to estimate the costs and life-years gained of screening persons aged 50-80 years for 4 screening strategies: (i) optical colonoscopy; and CTC with referral to optical colonoscopy of (ii) any suspected polyp; (iii) a suspected polyp >or=6 mm and (iv) a suspected polyp >or=10 mm. For each of the 4 strategies, screen intervals of 5, 10, 15 and 20 years were considered. Subsequently, for each CTC strategy and interval, the threshold costs of CTC were calculated. We performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of uncertain model parameters on the threshold costs. With equal costs ($662), optical colonoscopy dominated CTC screening. For CTC to gain similar life-years as colonoscopy screening every 10 years, it should be offered every 5 years with referral of polyps >or=6 mm. For this strategy to be as cost-effective as colonoscopy screening, the costs must not exceed $285 or 43% of colonoscopy costs (range in sensitivity analysis: 39-47%). With 25% higher adherence than colonoscopy, CTC threshold costs could be 71% of colonoscopy costs. Our estimate of 43% is considerably lower than previous estimates in literature, because previous studies only compared CTC screening to 10-yearly colonoscopy, where we compared to different intervals of colonoscopy screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19048626      PMCID: PMC2859672          DOI: 10.1002/ijc.24025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  69 in total

1.  Long-term efficacy of sigmoidoscopy in the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence.

Authors:  Polly A Newcomb; Barry E Storer; Libby M Morimoto; Allyson Templeton; John D Potter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-04-16       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Fecal occult blood screening in the Minnesota study: sensitivity of the screening test.

Authors:  T R Church; F Ederer; J S Mandel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Ralph J Coates; Barbara K Rimer; Nancy C Lee
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.

Authors:  Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Robert H Fletcher; Jonathon S Stillman; Michael J O'Brien; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; David A Lieberman; Randall W Burt; Theodore R Levin; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Tim Byers; Neil Hyman; Lynne Kirk; Alan Thorson; Clifford Simmang; David Johnson; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue?

Authors:  M Thomeer; D Bielen; D Vanbeckevoort; S Dymarkowski; A Gevers; P Rutgeerts; M Hiele; E Van Cutsem; G Marchal
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-24       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice.

Authors:  D K Rex; E Y Rahmani; J H Haseman; G T Lemmel; S Kaster; J S Buckley
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Natural history of untreated colonic polyps.

Authors:  S J Stryker; B G Wolff; C E Culp; S D Libbe; D M Ilstrup; R L MacCarty
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy: when, at what cost, and with what national impact?

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Kenneth Song; A Mark Fendrick
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Protection by endoscopy against death from colorectal cancer. A case-control study among veterans.

Authors:  A D Müller; A Sonnenberg
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1995-09-11
View more
  25 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the medicare population.

Authors:  Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: the case of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Carolyn M Rutter; Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; James E Savarino; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Rob Boer; Eric J Feuer; J Dik F Habbema; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Incremental net benefit and acceptability of alternative health policies: a case study of mass screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Pauline Chauvin; Jean-Michel Josselin; Denis Heresbach
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-02-09

4.  Cost-effectiveness of alternative colonoscopy surveillance strategies to mitigate metachronous colorectal cancer incidence.

Authors:  Fatih Safa Erenay; Oguzhan Alagoz; Ritesh Banerjee; Adnan Said; Robert R Cima
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in high-risk Spanish patients: use of a validated model to inform public policy.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Angel Ferrandez; Angel Lanas
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates.

Authors:  Brenda K Edwards; Elizabeth Ward; Betsy A Kohler; Christie Eheman; Ann G Zauber; Robert N Anderson; Ahmedin Jemal; Maria J Schymura; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Laura C Seeff; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; S Luuk Goede; Lynn A G Ries
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Computed tomographic colonography: hope or hype?

Authors:  Otto Schiueh-Tzang Lin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-02-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2010-10

9.  How does early detection by screening affect disease progression? Modeling estimated benefits in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Wever; Gerrit Draisma; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Margriet C de Haan; Esther M Stoop; Marije Deutekom; Paul Fockens; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Maarten Thomeer; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Monique E van Leerdam; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.