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. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Veteran Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.vanballegooijen@erasmusmc.nl.
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.
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 whitewomen 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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