Frank van Hees1, Ann G Zauber2, Carrie N Klabunde3, S Luuk Goede1, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar1, Marjolein van Ballegooijen1. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Health Services and Economics Branch, Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency). RESULTS: Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711 000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.
IMPORTANCE: Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency). RESULTS: Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711 000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.
Authors: J C Clark; Y Collan; T J Eide; J Estève; S Ewen; N M Gibbs; O M Jensen; E Koskela; R MacLennan; J G Simpson Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1985-08-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Nicolle M Gatto; Harold Frucht; Vijaya Sundararajan; Judith S Jacobson; Victor R Grann; Alfred I Neugut Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-02-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David A Lieberman; David G Weiss; William V Harford; Dennis J Ahnen; Dawn Provenzale; Stephen J Sontag; Thomas G Schnell; Gregorio Chejfec; Donald R Campbell; Jayashri Kidao; John H Bond; Douglas B Nelson; George Triadafilopoulos; Francisco C Ramirez; Judith F Collins; Tiina K Johnston; Kenneth R McQuaid; Harinder Garewal; Richard E Sampliner; Romeo Esquivel; Douglas Robertson Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 22.682
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
Authors: Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; Carolyn M Rutter; Steffie K Naber; V Paul Doria-Rose; Chester Pabiniak; Colden Johanson; Sara E Fischer; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frank van Hees; Sameer D Saini; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Sandeep Vijan; Reinier G S Meester; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Steffie K Naber; Karen M Kuntz; Nora B Henrikson; Marc S Williams; Ned Calonge; Katrina A B Goddard; Doris T Zallen; Theodore G Ganiats; Elizabeth M Webber; A Cecile J W Janssens; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Steffie K Naber; Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; Carolyn M Rutter; Sara E Fischer; Chester J Pabiniak; Brittany Soto; Karen M Kuntz; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 3.240