Literature DB >> 20226186

Surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective for patients with adenomas who are at high risk of colorectal cancer.

Sameer D Saini1, Philip Schoenfeld, Sandeep Vijan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend that patients with colon adenomas undergo periodic surveillance colonoscopy. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these recommendations.
METHODS: We developed a Markov model to study various surveillance strategies from the perspective of a long-term payer. We modeled a cohort of 50-year-old patients with newly diagnosed adenomas, following them until death. Thirty percent of the population was assumed to be at high risk for colorectal cancer. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.
RESULTS: Performing colonoscopies every 3 years in high-risk patients and every 10 years in low-risk patients (3/10 strategy) was more costly but also more effective than no surveillance, with an ICER of $5,743 per QALY gained. Compared with this 3/10 strategy, a 3/5 strategy was considerably more costly but only marginally more effective, with an ICER of $296,266 per QALY. A 3/3 strategy was more costly and less effective than a 3/5 strategy (dominated). Results were most sensitive to the annual probability of advanced adenoma formation and the relative risk (RR) of advanced adenoma formation in high-risk versus low-risk patients. Assuming that the probability of advanced adenoma formation was 1.3% per year (base: 0.5%), the ICER of the 3/5 strategy was <$50,000 per QALY gained if the RR of advanced adenoma formation was <2.4 (base: 3.9).
CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective for patients who are at high risk for developing colorectal cancer. Aggressive surveillance can be expensive or even harmful; efforts should be made to improve risk models for colonic neoplasia. Copyright 2010 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20226186     DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.03.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  17 in total

Review 1.  Adverse events in older patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lukejohn W Day; Annette Kwon; John M Inadomi; Louise C Walter; Ma Somsouk
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 2.  Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.

Authors:  Ethna McFerran; James F O'Mahony; Richard Fallis; Duncan McVicar; Ann G Zauber; Frank Kee
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.222

3.  Cost utility of inflammation-targeted therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Sameer D Saini; Akbar K Waljee; Peter D R Higgins
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Retrograde-viewing device improves adenoma detection rate in colonoscopies for surveillance and diagnostic workup.

Authors:  Peter D Siersema; Amit Rastogi; Anke M Leufkens; Paul A Akerman; Kassem Azzouzi; Richard I Rothstein; Frank P Vleggaar; Alessandro Repici; Giacomo Rando; Patrick I Okolo; Olivier Dewit; Ana Ignjatovic; Elizabeth Odstrcil; James East; Pierre H Deprez; Brian P Saunders; Anthony N Kalloo; Bradley Creel; Vikas Singh; Anne Marie Lennon; Daniel C DeMarco
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on Guideline Adherence of Surveillance Recommendations for Colonoscopy After Polypectomy.

Authors:  Melissa Magrath; Edward Yang; Chul Ahn; Christian A Mayorga; Purva Gopal; Caitlin C Murphy; Samir Gupta; Deepak Agrawal; Ethan A Halm; Eric K Borton; Celette Sugg Skinner; Amit G Singal
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 11.908

6.  Predictors of guideline concordance for surveillance colonoscopy recommendations in patients at a safety-net health system.

Authors:  Ben Kahn; Zachary Freeland; Purva Gopal; Deepak Agrawal; Christian A Mayorga; Rozina Mithani; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 7.  Importance of determining indication for colonoscopy: implications for practice and policy original.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Samir Gupta; Jeffrey Lee; Ethan A Halm; Carolyn M Rutter; Douglas Corley; John Inadomi
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  Repeat colonoscopy after a colonoscopy with a negative result in Ontario: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Lieke Hol; Rinku Sutradhar; Sumei Gu; Nancy N Baxter; Linda Rabeneck; Jill M Tinmouth; Lawrence F Paszat
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2015-04-02

9.  High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Amy B Knudsen; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Development of the Parkland-UT Southwestern Colonoscopy Reporting System (CoRS) for evidence-based colon cancer surveillance recommendations.

Authors:  Celette Sugg Skinner; Samir Gupta; Ethan A Halm; Shaun Wright; Katharine McCallister; Wendy Bishop; Noel Santini; Christian Mayorga; Deepak Agrawal; Brett Moran; Joanne M Sanders; Amit G Singal
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 4.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.