Literature DB >> 23539282

Predictors of CT colonography utilization among asymptomatic medicare beneficiaries.

Hanna M Zafar1, Jianing Yang, Michael Harhay, Anna Lev-Toaff, Katrina Armstrong.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) denied coverage for screening computed tomography colonography (CTC) in March 2009, little is understood about whether CTC was targeted to the appropriate patient population prior to this decision.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate patient characteristics and known relative clinical indications for screening CTC among patients who received CTC compared to optical colonoscopy (OC). DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study of all 10,538 asymptomatic Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CTC between January 2007 and December 2008, compared to a cohort of 160,113 asymptomatic beneficiaries who underwent OC, matched on county of residence and year of examination. MAIN MEASURES: Patient characteristics and known relative appropriate and inappropriate clinical indications for screening CTC. KEY
RESULTS: CTC utilization was higher among women, patients > 65 years of age, white patients, and those with household income > 75 % (p = 0.001). Patients with relatively appropriate clinical indications for screening CTC were more likely to undergo CTC than OC including presumed incomplete OC (OR 80.7, 95 % CI 76.01-85.63); sedation risk (OR 1.11, 95 % CI 1.05-1.17); and chronic anticoagulation risk (OR 1.46, 95 % CI 1.38-1.54), after adjusting for patient characteristics and known clinical indications. Conversely, patients undergoing high-risk screening, an inappropriate indication, were less likely to receive CTC (OR 0.4, 95 % CI 0.37-0.42). Overall, 83 % of asymptomatic patients referred to CTC had at least one clinical indication relatively appropriate for CTC (8,772/10,538).
CONCLUSION: During the 2 years preceding CMS denial for screening, CTC was targeted to asymptomatic patients with relatively appropriate clinical indications for CTC/not receiving OC. However, CTC utilization was lower among certain demographic groups, including minority patients. These findings raise the possibility that future coverage of screening CTC might exacerbate disparities in colorectal cancer screening while increasing overall screening rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23539282      PMCID: PMC3744296          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-013-2414-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  50 in total

1.  Incidence of colorectal carcinoma in the U.S.: an update of trends by gender, race, age, subsite, and stage, 1975-1994.

Authors:  R J Troisi; A N Freedman; S S Devesa
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1999-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Low rates of colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening in Asian Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites: Cultural influences or access to care?

Authors:  Namratha R Kandula; Ming Wen; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Diane S Lauderdale
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Assessing attitudes toward laxative preparation in colorectal cancer screening and effects on future testing: potential receptivity to computed tomographic colonography.

Authors:  Timothy J Beebe; C Daniel Johnson; Sarah M Stoner; Kari J Anderson; Paul J Limburg
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  Patient factors influencing the completion rate in colonoscopy.

Authors:  G Dafnis; F Granath; L Påhlman; A Ekbom; P Blomqvist
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.088

5.  Low uptake of colorectal cancer screening 3 yr after release of national recommendations for screening.

Authors:  S Elizabeth McGregor; Robert J Hilsden; Feng X Li; Heather E Bryant; Alison Murray
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-04-16       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study.

Authors:  Hemant A Shah; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Therese A Stukel; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia.

Authors:  David H Kim; Perry J Pickhardt; Andrew J Taylor; Winifred K Leung; Thomas C Winter; J Louis Hinshaw; Deepak V Gopal; Mark Reichelderfer; Richard H Hsu; Patrick R Pfau
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-10-04       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Anatomic factors predictive of incomplete colonoscopy based on findings at CT colonography.

Authors:  Meghan E Hanson; Perry J Pickhardt; David H Kim; Patrick R Pfau
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Racial/ethnic differences in patient experiences with and preferences for computed tomography colonography and optical colonoscopy.

Authors:  Roshini C Rajapaksa; Michael Macari; Edmund J Bini
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2007-08-06       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Gender differences in utilization of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  J Wardle; A Miles; W Atkin
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  3 in total

1.  Capsule commentary on Zafar et al., predictor of CT colonography utilization among asymptomatic medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Cost Differences After Initial CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly.

Authors:  Hanna M Zafar; Jianing Yang; Katrina Armstrong; Peter Groeneveld
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Adverse events Following Computed Tomographic Colonography compared to Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly.

Authors:  Hanna M Zafar; Michael O Harhay; Jianing Yang; Katrina Armstron
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2014
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.