Fatih Safa Erenay1, Oguzhan Alagoz2, Ritesh Banerjee3, Adnan Said4, Robert R Cima5,6. 1. Department of Management Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Astellas Pharmaceuticals, Northbrook, Illinois. 4. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 5. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 6. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Surgical Outcomes Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of metachronous colorectal cancer (MCRC) among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors varies significantly, and the optimal colonoscopy surveillance practice for mitigating MCRC incidence is unknown. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was used to compare the performances of the US Multi-Society Task Force guideline and all clinically reasonable colonoscopy surveillance strategies for 50- to 79-year-old posttreatment CRC patients with a computer simulation model. RESULTS: The US guideline [(1,3,5)] recommends the first colonoscopy 1 year after treatment, whereas the second and third colonoscopies are to be repeated at 3- and 5-year intervals. Some promising alternative cost-effective strategies were identified. In comparison with the US guideline, under various scenarios for a 20-year period, 1) reducing the surveillance interval of the guideline after the first colonoscopy by 1 year [(1,2,5)] would save up to 78 discounted life-years (LYs) and prevent 23 MCRCs per 1000 patients (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] ≤ $23,270/LY), 2) reducing the intervals after the first and second negative colonoscopies by 1 year [(1,2,4)] would save/prevent up to 109 discounted LYs and 36 MCRCs (ICER ≤ $52,155/LY), and 3) reducing the surveillance intervals after the first and second negative colonoscopy by 1 and 2 years [(1,2,3)] would save/prevent up to 141 discounted LYs and 50 MCRCs (ICER ≤ $63,822/LY). These strategies would require up to 1100 additional colonoscopies per 1000 patients. Although the US guideline might not be cost-effective in comparison with a less intensive oncology guideline [(3,3,5); the ICER could be as high as $140,000/LY], the promising strategies would be cost-effective in comparison with such less intensive guidelines unless the cumulative MCRC incidence were very low. CONCLUSIONS: The US guideline might be improved by a slight increase in the surveillance intensity at the expense of moderately increased cost. More research is warranted to explore the benefits/harms of such practices. Cancer 2016;122:2560-70.
BACKGROUND: The incidence of metachronous colorectal cancer (MCRC) among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors varies significantly, and the optimal colonoscopy surveillance practice for mitigating MCRC incidence is unknown. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was used to compare the performances of the US Multi-Society Task Force guideline and all clinically reasonable colonoscopy surveillance strategies for 50- to 79-year-old posttreatment CRC patients with a computer simulation model. RESULTS: The US guideline [(1,3,5)] recommends the first colonoscopy 1 year after treatment, whereas the second and third colonoscopies are to be repeated at 3- and 5-year intervals. Some promising alternative cost-effective strategies were identified. In comparison with the US guideline, under various scenarios for a 20-year period, 1) reducing the surveillance interval of the guideline after the first colonoscopy by 1 year [(1,2,5)] would save up to 78 discounted life-years (LYs) and prevent 23 MCRCs per 1000 patients (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] ≤ $23,270/LY), 2) reducing the intervals after the first and second negative colonoscopies by 1 year [(1,2,4)] would save/prevent up to 109 discounted LYs and 36 MCRCs (ICER ≤ $52,155/LY), and 3) reducing the surveillance intervals after the first and second negative colonoscopy by 1 and 2 years [(1,2,3)] would save/prevent up to 141 discounted LYs and 50 MCRCs (ICER ≤ $63,822/LY). These strategies would require up to 1100 additional colonoscopies per 1000 patients. Although the US guideline might not be cost-effective in comparison with a less intensive oncology guideline [(3,3,5); the ICER could be as high as $140,000/LY], the promising strategies would be cost-effective in comparison with such less intensive guidelines unless the cumulative MCRC incidence were very low. CONCLUSIONS: The US guideline might be improved by a slight increase in the surveillance intensity at the expense of moderately increased cost. More research is warranted to explore the benefits/harms of such practices. Cancer 2016;122:2560-70.
Authors: Stuart R Cairns; John H Scholefield; Robert J Steele; Malcolm G Dunlop; Huw J W Thomas; Gareth D Evans; Jayne A Eaden; Matthew D Rutter; Wendy P Atkin; Brian P Saunders; Anneke Lucassen; Paul Jenkins; Peter D Fairclough; Christopher R J Woodhouse Journal: Gut Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Christopher E Desch; Al B Benson; Mark R Somerfield; Patrick J Flynn; Carol Krause; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; David G Pfister; Katherine S Virgo; Nicholas J Petrelli Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Talya Salz; Morris Weinberger; John Z Ayanian; Noel T Brewer; Craig C Earle; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Deborah A Fisher; Bryan J Weiner; Robert S Sandler Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 2.655
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: Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Pamela B Mangu; Patrick J Flynn; Larissa Korde; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kim Ryan; Deborah H Schrag; Sandra L Wong; Al B Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Vera; J Aparicio; F Carballo; M Esteva; E González-Flores; J Santianes; F Santolaya; J M Fernández-Cebrián Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Koen Degeling; Hendrik Koffijberg; Mira D Franken; Miriam Koopman; Maarten J IJzerman Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.583