Literature DB >> 26080339

Variation in Adenoma Detection Rate and the Lifetime Benefits and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Model.

Reinier G S Meester1, Chyke A Doubeni2, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar3, Christopher D Jensen4, Miriam P van der Meulen3, Theodore R Levin4, Virginia P Quinn5, Joanne E Schottinger5, Ann G Zauber6, Douglas A Corley4, Marjolein van Ballegooijen3.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Colonoscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. Its quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates (ADRs), varies widely among physicians, with unknown consequences for the cost and benefits of screening programs.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetime benefits, complications, and costs of an initial colonoscopy screening program at different levels of adenoma detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation modeling with data from a community-based health care system on ADR variation and cancer risk among 57,588 patients examined by 136 physicians from 1998 through 2010. EXPOSURES: Using modeling, no screening was compared with screening initiation with colonoscopy according to ADR quintiles (averages 15.3%, quintile 1; 21.3%, quintile 2; 25.6%, quintile 3; 30.9%, quintile 4; and 38.7%, quintile 5) at ages 50, 60, and 70 years with appropriate surveillance of patients with adenoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, number of colonoscopies, complications, and costs per 1000 patients, all discounted at 3% per year and including 95% confidence intervals from multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: In simulation modeling, among unscreened patients the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer incidence was 34.2 per 1000 (95% CI, 25.9-43.6) and risk of mortality was 13.4 per 1000 (95% CI, 10.0-17.6). Among screened patients, simulated lifetime incidence decreased with lower to higher ADRs (26.6; 95% CI, 20.0-34.3 for quintile 1 vs 12.5; 95% CI, 9.3-16.5 for quintile 5) as did mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 4.2-7.7 for quintile 1 vs 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1 for quintile 5). Compared with quintile 1, simulated lifetime incidence was on average 11.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.9%) lower for every 5 percentage-point increase of ADRs and for mortality, 12.8% (95% CI, 11.1%-13.7%) lower. Complications increased from 6.0 (95% CI, 4.0-8.5) of 2777 colonoscopies (95% CI, 2626-2943) in quintile 1 to 8.9 (95% CI, 6.1-12.0) complications of 3376 (95% CI, 3081-3681) colonoscopies in quintile 5. Estimated net screening costs were lower from quintile 1 (US $2.1 million, 95% CI, $1.8-$2.4 million) to quintile 5 (US $1.8 million, 95% CI, $1.3-$2.3 million) due to averted cancer treatment costs. Results were stable across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study, higher adenoma detection rates in screening colonoscopy were associated with lower lifetime risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer mortality without being associated with higher overall costs. Future research is needed to assess whether increasing adenoma detection would be associated with improved patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26080339      PMCID: PMC4631392          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.6251

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  34 in total

1.  Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Wendy S Atkin; Rob Edwards; Ines Kralj-Hans; Kate Wooldrage; Andrew R Hart; John M A Northover; D Max Parkin; Jane Wardle; Stephen W Duffy; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy.

Authors:  William D Farrar; Mandeep S Sawhney; Douglas B Nelson; Frank A Lederle; John H Bond
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2006-09-25       Impact factor: 11.382

3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Jaroslaw Regula; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Urszula Wojciechowska; Joanna Didkowska; Maria Zwierko; Maciej Rupinski; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jeroen C van Rijn; Johannes B Reitsma; Jaap Stoker; Patrick M Bossuyt; Sander J van Deventer; Evelien Dekker
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood.

Authors:  J S Mandel; T R Church; F Ederer; J H Bond
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-03-03       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  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

7.  Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Robert L Barclay; Joseph J Vicari; Andrea S Doughty; John F Johanson; Roger L Greenlaw
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology.

Authors:  Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Elizabeth B Lamont; Angela Mariotto; Joan L Warren; Marie Topor; Angela Meekins; Martin L Brown
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Joan L Warren; Carrie N Klabunde; Angela B Mariotto; Angela Meekins; Marie Topor; Martin L Brown; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  27 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Changes in screening colonoscopy following Medicare reimbursement and cost-sharing changes.

Authors:  Lina D Song; Joseph P Newhouse; Xabier Garcia-De-Albeniz; John Hsu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Similar Adenoma Detection Rates in Colonoscopic Procedures of Patients with Spinal Cord Injury Compared to Controls.

Authors:  Ana Blanco Belver; Mirko Aach; Wolff Schmiegel; Thomas A Schildhauer; Renate Meindl; Thorsten Brechmann
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Editorial: On the Quality of Quality Metrics: Rethinking What Defines a Good Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jason A Dominitz; Brennan Spiegel
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Colorectal Cancer Health Disparities and the Role of US Law and Health Policy.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Douglas A Corley; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Impact of adenoma detection on the benefit of faecal testing vs. colonoscopy for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Douglas A Corley; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Comparison of Colonoscopy Quality Measures Across Various Practice Settings and the Impact of Performance Scorecards.

Authors:  Jennifer A Inra; Jennifer Nayor; Margery Rosenblatt; Muthoka Mutinga; Sarathchandra I Reddy; Sapna Syngal; Fay Kastrinos
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  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

Review 9.  The Effect of Right Colon Retroflexion on Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jonah Cohen; Douglas Grunwald; Laurie B Grossberg; Mandeep S Sawhney
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.062

10.  Optimizing Colonoscopy Quality: From Bowel Preparation to Surveillance.

Authors:  Carla G Abou Fadel; Rani H Shayto; Ala I Sharara
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.