Literature DB >> 26253304

Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness.

Frank van Hees1, Sameer D Saini2, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar1, Sandeep Vijan2, Reinier G S Meester1, Harry J de Koning1, Ann G Zauber3, Marjolein van Ballegooijen4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions for elderly individuals are often made primarily on the basis of age, whereas other factors that influence the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening are often not considered. We investigated the relative importance of factors that could be used to identify elderly individuals most likely to benefit from CRC screening and determined the maximum ages at which screening remains cost effective based on these factors.
METHODS: We used a microsimulation model (Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon) calibrated to the incidence of CRC in the United States and the prevalence of adenomas reported in autopsy studies to determine the appropriate age at which to stop colonoscopy screening in 19,200 cohorts (of 10 million individuals), defined by sex, race, screening history, background risk for CRC, and comorbidity status. We applied a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS: Less intensive screening history, higher background risk for CRC, and fewer comorbidities were associated with cost-effective screening at older ages. Sex and race had only a small effect on the appropriate age to stop screening. For some individuals likely to be screened in current practice (for example, 74-year-old white women with moderate comorbidities, half the average background risk for CRC, and negative findings from a screening colonoscopy 10 years previously), screening resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain. For some individuals unlikely to be screened in current practice (for example, 81-year-old black men with no comorbidities, an average background risk for CRC, and no previous screening), screening was highly cost effective. Although screening some previously screened, low-risk individuals was not cost effective even when they were 66 years old, screening some healthy, high-risk individuals remained cost effective until they reached the age of 88 years old.
CONCLUSIONS: The current approach to CRC screening in elderly individuals, in which decisions are often based primarily on age, is inefficient, resulting in underuse of screening for some and overuse of screening for others. CRC screening could be more effective and cost effective if individual factors for each patient are considered.
Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colon Cancer Screening; Individualized Care; MISCAN; Tumor

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26253304      PMCID: PMC4631390          DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.07.042

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


  46 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Secular trends in colon and rectal cancer relative survival.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Eric A Johnson; Eric J Feuer; Amy B Knudsen; Karen M Kuntz; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Personalizing age of cancer screening cessation based on comorbid conditions: model estimates of harms and benefits.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Roman Gulati; Angela B Mariotto; Clyde B Schechter; Tiago M de Carvalho; Amy B Knudsen; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Chester Pabiniak; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Carolyn M Rutter; Karen M Kuntz; Eric J Feuer; Ruth Etzioni; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes 2000 to 2011.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; J Lucas Williams; Jennifer L Holub; Cynthia D Morris; Judith R Logan; Glenn M Eisen; Patricia Carney
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Joshua T Cohen; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Medicare population.

Authors:  James S Goodwin; Amanpal Singh; Nischita Reddy; Taylor S Riall; Yong-Fang Kuo
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-05-09

7.  The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; Ann G Zauber; Carrie N Klabunde; S Luuk Goede; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Potentially inappropriate screening colonoscopy in Medicare patients: variation by physician and geographic region.

Authors:  Kristin M Sheffield; Yimei Han; Yong-Fang Kuo; Taylor S Riall; James S Goodwin
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; J Dik F Habbema; Reinier G Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Role of quality measurement in inappropriate use of screening for colorectal cancer: retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Sameer D Saini; Sandeep Vijan; Philip Schoenfeld; Adam A Powell; Stephanie Moser; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-02-26
View more
  25 in total

1.  Modeling Individual Patient Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Their Tolerance for Complications Risk.

Authors:  Glen B Taksler; Adam T Perzynski; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 2.  Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment.

Authors:  Geoffrey S Ginsburg; R Ryanne Wu; Lori A Orlando
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Influence of Age and Comorbidity on Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Yingye Zheng; Virginia P Quinn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Carolyn M Rutter; Ethan A Halm; Jessica Chubak; Chyke A Doubeni; Jennifer S Haas; Aruna Kamineni; Marilyn M Schapira; Pamela M Vacek; Michael P Garcia; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Declining detection rates for APC and biallelic MUTYH variants in polyposis patients, implications for DNA testing policy.

Authors:  Diantha Terlouw; Manon Suerink; Sunny S Singh; Hans J J P Gille; Frederik J Hes; Alexandra M J Langers; Hans Morreau; Hans F A Vasen; Yvonne J Vos; Tom van Wezel; Carli M Tops; Sanne W Ten Broeke; Maartje Nielsen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  miR-517a is an independent prognostic marker and contributes to cell migration and invasion in human colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Wenqi Ma; Qiang Yu; Jue Jiang; Xiaopeng DU; Lili Huang; Linlin Zhao; Q I Zhou
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 2.967

6.  Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History.

Authors:  Dayna R Cenin; Jill Tinmouth; Steffie K Naber; Catherine Dubé; Bronwen R McCurdy; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  Economic Evaluation of Tailored Web versus Tailored Telephone-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening among Women.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Tong Han Chung; Danmeng Huang; Timothy E Stump; Patrick O Monahan; Shannon M Christy; Susan M Rawl; Victoria L Champion
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2020-01-22

8.  The influence of multi-morbidities on colorectal cancer screening recommendations and completion.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Carrie M Nielson; Erin M Keast; Amanda F Petrik; Jerry M Suls
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  What Should We Recommend for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Adults Aged 75 and Older?

Authors:  Anuj Arora; Sami A Chadi; Tyler Chesney
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 3.677

10.  Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps.

Authors:  Pamela M Marcus; Nora Pashayan; Timothy R Church; V Paul Doria-Rose; Michael K Gould; Rebecca A Hubbard; Michael Marrone; Diana L Miglioretti; Paul D Pharoah; Paul F Pinsky; Katherine A Rendle; Hilary A Robbins; Megan C Roberts; Betsy Rolland; Mark Schiffman; Jasmin A Tiro; Ann G Zauber; Deborah M Winn; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.