Mats Lindblad1,2, Tim Bright1, Ann Schloithe1, George C Mayne1, Gang Chen3, Jeff Bull1, Peter A Bampton4, Robert J L Fraser4, Piers A Gatenby5, Louisa G Gordon6, David I Watson7,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Flinders University, Flinders Medical Centre, Room 3D211, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia. 2. Division of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Centre of Digestive Diseases, Karolinska, University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Department of Surgery, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK. 6. Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. 7. Department of Surgery, Flinders University, Flinders Medical Centre, Room 3D211, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia. david.watson@flinders.edu.au. 8. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. david.watson@flinders.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is probably not cost-effective. A sub-population with BE at increased risk of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) who could be targeted for cost-effective surveillance was sought. METHODS: The outcome for BE surveillance from 2003 to 2012 in a structured program was reviewed. Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios for developing HGD or EAC were calculated. Risk stratification identified individuals who could be considered for exclusion from surveillance. A health-state transition Markov cohort model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of focusing on higher-risk individuals. RESULTS: During 2067 person-years of follow-up of 640 patients, 17 individuals progressed to HGD or EAC (annual IR 0.8%). Individuals with columnar-lined esophagus (CLE) ≥2 cm had an annual IR of 1.2% and >8-fold increased relative risk of HGD or EAC, compared to CLE <2 cm [IR-0.14% (IRR 8.6, 95% CIs 4.5-12.8)]. Limiting the surveillance cohort after the first endoscopy to individuals with CLE ≥2 cm, or dysplasia, followed by a further restriction after the second endoscopy-exclusion of patients without intestinal metaplasia-removed 296 (46%) patients, and 767 (37%) person-years from surveillance. Limiting surveillance to the remaining individuals reduced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from US$60,858 to US$33,807 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Further restrictions were tested but failed to improve cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Based on stratification of risk, the number of patients requiring surveillance can be reduced by at least a third. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY, surveillance of higher-risk individuals becomes cost-effective.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is probably not cost-effective. A sub-population with BE at increased risk of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) who could be targeted for cost-effective surveillance was sought. METHODS: The outcome for BE surveillance from 2003 to 2012 in a structured program was reviewed. Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios for developing HGD or EAC were calculated. Risk stratification identified individuals who could be considered for exclusion from surveillance. A health-state transition Markov cohort model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of focusing on higher-risk individuals. RESULTS: During 2067 person-years of follow-up of 640 patients, 17 individuals progressed to HGD or EAC (annual IR 0.8%). Individuals with columnar-lined esophagus (CLE) ≥2 cm had an annual IR of 1.2% and >8-fold increased relative risk of HGD or EAC, compared to CLE <2 cm [IR-0.14% (IRR 8.6, 95% CIs 4.5-12.8)]. Limiting the surveillance cohort after the first endoscopy to individuals with CLE ≥2 cm, or dysplasia, followed by a further restriction after the second endoscopy-exclusion of patients without intestinal metaplasia-removed 296 (46%) patients, and 767 (37%) person-years from surveillance. Limiting surveillance to the remaining individuals reduced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from US$60,858 to US$33,807 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Further restrictions were tested but failed to improve cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Based on stratification of risk, the number of patients requiring surveillance can be reduced by at least a third. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY, surveillance of higher-risk individuals becomes cost-effective.
Authors: Stuart J Spechler; Prateek Sharma; Rhonda F Souza; John M Inadomi; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: H Koop; K H Fuchs; J Labenz; P Lynen Jansen; H Messmann; S Miehlke; W Schepp; T G Wenzl Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: John A Evans; Dayna S Early; Norio Fukami; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Vinay Chandrasekhara; Krishnavel V Chathadi; G Anton Decker; Robert D Fanelli; Deborah A Fisher; Kimberly Q Foley; Joo Ha Hwang; Rajeev Jain; Terry L Jue; Khalid M Khan; Jenifer Lightdale; Phyllis M Malpas; John T Maple; Shabana F Pasha; John R Saltzman; Ravi N Sharaf; Amandeep Shergill; Jason A Dominitz; Brooks D Cash Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Louisa G Gordon; George C Mayne; Nicholas G Hirst; Timothy Bright; David C Whiteman; David I Watson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Heiko Pohl; Oliver Pech; Haris Arash; Manfred Stolte; Hendrik Manner; Andrea May; Klaus Kraywinkel; Amnon Sonnenberg; Christian Ell Journal: Gut Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; David S Weinberg; Thomas D Denberg; Roger Chou; Amir Qaseem; Paul Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Massimiliano di Pietro; Krish Ragunath; Yeng Ang; Jin-Yong Kang; Peter Watson; Nigel Trudgill; Praful Patel; Philip V Kaye; Scott Sanders; Maria O'Donovan; Elizabeth Bird-Lieberman; Pradeep Bhandari; Janusz A Jankowski; Stephen Attwood; Simon L Parsons; Duncan Loft; Jesper Lagergren; Paul Moayyedi; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; John de Caestecker Journal: Gut Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Carlijn A M Roumans; Manon C W Spaander; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Katharina Biermann; Marco J Bruno; Ewout W Steyerberg; Dimitris Rizopoulos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Julie A Webster; Alain Wuethrich; Karthik B Shanmugasundaram; Renee S Richards; Wioleta M Zelek; Alok K Shah; Louisa G Gordon; Bradley J Kendall; Gunter Hartel; B Paul Morgan; Matt Trau; Michelle M Hill Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 6.575