Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar1, S Lucas Goede2, Linda J W Bosch3, Veerle Melotte4, Beatriz Carvalho3, Manon van Engeland4, Gerrit A Meijer3, Harry J de Koning2, Marjolein van Ballegooijen2. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: i.vogelaar@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarker assays could increase the accuracy of noninvasive detection of colorectal cancer (CRC); fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are estimated to miss 27%-47% of CRCs and 70%-80% of advanced adenomas per round of screening. We investigated the conditions under which biomarker screens would be cost-effective compared with FIT screens of average-risk individuals. METHODS: We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the effects of various CRC screening test characteristics on life-years gained (LYG) and; age-specific all-cause mortality was based on the 2010 Dutch life tables. Simulated CRC incidence rate and CRC stage distribution were calibrated to observed data in The Netherlands from 1999 through 2003 (before opportunities for screening). Survival rates after diagnosis of CRC at an age younger than 75 years were based on CRC relative survival data from 1985 through 2004; survival for individuals diagnosed at an age of 75 years or older was adjusted to fit the observed age-increasing mortality/incidence ratio. We modeled FIT along with hypothetical biomarker tests with different test performance levels. For each biomarker test we calculated the maximum unit cost for the test to be cost-effective compared with FIT, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 ($56,000) per LYG. RESULTS: Biennial FIT screening of subjects 55-75 years old provided 84.9 LYG at a cost of €122,000 ($137,000) per 1000 participants. Considering a unit cost of €7 ($8) for FIT (including kit and analysis only, excluding organizational costs), a biomarker test that detects CRC with higher levels of specificity and sensitivity (100%) and advanced adenomas at a proportionally higher level of sensitivity (53%) should never exceed a cost of €51 ($57). The threshold cost could increase to more than €200 ($224) for high-performing biomarker tests in cases of limited colonoscopy capacity or higher uptake of this test. CONCLUSIONS: By using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate effects of CRC screening tests, we found that for a biomarker test with increased overall performance to be cost-effective, it should not exceed 7-fold the unit cost of FIT. This maximum would increase substantially if colonoscopy becomes more expensive or scarce, or if the new test has higher screening uptake. These values could be used to estimate the added value of new biomarkers compared with current FIT screening.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarker assays could increase the accuracy of noninvasive detection of colorectal cancer (CRC); fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are estimated to miss 27%-47% of CRCs and 70%-80% of advanced adenomas per round of screening. We investigated the conditions under which biomarker screens would be cost-effective compared with FIT screens of average-risk individuals. METHODS: We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate the effects of various CRC screening test characteristics on life-years gained (LYG) and; age-specific all-cause mortality was based on the 2010 Dutch life tables. Simulated CRC incidence rate and CRC stage distribution were calibrated to observed data in The Netherlands from 1999 through 2003 (before opportunities for screening). Survival rates after diagnosis of CRC at an age younger than 75 years were based on CRC relative survival data from 1985 through 2004; survival for individuals diagnosed at an age of 75 years or older was adjusted to fit the observed age-increasing mortality/incidence ratio. We modeled FIT along with hypothetical biomarker tests with different test performance levels. For each biomarker test we calculated the maximum unit cost for the test to be cost-effective compared with FIT, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 ($56,000) per LYG. RESULTS: Biennial FIT screening of subjects 55-75 years old provided 84.9 LYG at a cost of €122,000 ($137,000) per 1000 participants. Considering a unit cost of €7 ($8) for FIT (including kit and analysis only, excluding organizational costs), a biomarker test that detects CRC with higher levels of specificity and sensitivity (100%) and advanced adenomas at a proportionally higher level of sensitivity (53%) should never exceed a cost of €51 ($57). The threshold cost could increase to more than €200 ($224) for high-performing biomarker tests in cases of limited colonoscopy capacity or higher uptake of this test. CONCLUSIONS: By using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to estimate effects of CRC screening tests, we found that for a biomarker test with increased overall performance to be cost-effective, it should not exceed 7-fold the unit cost of FIT. This maximum would increase substantially if colonoscopy becomes more expensive or scarce, or if the new test has higher screening uptake. These values could be used to estimate the added value of new biomarkers compared with current FIT screening.
Authors: Linda J W Bosch; Beatriz Carvalho; Remond J A Fijneman; Connie R Jimenez; Herbert M Pinedo; Manon van Engeland; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Kenneth P Batts; Carol A Burke; Randall W Burt; John R Goldblum; José G Guillem; Charles J Kahi; Matthew F Kalady; Michael J O'Brien; Robert D Odze; Shuji Ogino; Susan Parry; Dale C Snover; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul E Wise; Joanne Young; James Church Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; David F Ransohoff; Steven H Itzkowitz; Theodore R Levin; Philip Lavin; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Russell I Heigh; Tracy C Yab; William R Taylor; Fareeda T N Hussain; Thomas C Smyrk; Douglas W Mahoney; Michael J Domanico; Barry M Berger; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Berbel Ykema; Lisanne Rigter; Manon Spaander; Leon Moons; Tanya Bisseling; Berthe Aleman; Jan Paul de Boer; Pieternella Lugtenburg; Cecile Janus; Eefke Petersen; Judith Roesink; John Raemaekers; Richard van der Maazen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Andrea Gini; Wieke Verbeek; Margriet Lemmens; Gerrit Meijer; Flora van Leeuwen; Petur Snaebjornsson; Beatriz Carvalho; Monique van Leerdam Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: L J W Bosch; V Melotte; S Mongera; K L J Daenen; V M H Coupé; S T van Turenhout; E M Stoop; T R de Wijkerslooth; C J J Mulder; C Rausch; E J Kuipers; E Dekker; M J Domanico; G P Lidgard; B M Berger; M van Engeland; B Carvalho; G A Meijer Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Malgorzata A Komor; Linda Jw Bosch; Veerle Mh Coupé; Christian Rausch; Thang V Pham; Sander R Piersma; Sandra Mongera; Chris Jj Mulder; Evelien Dekker; Ernst J Kuipers; Mark A van de Wiel; Beatriz Carvalho; Remond Ja Fijneman; Connie R Jimenez; Gerrit A Meijer; Meike de Wit Journal: J Pathol Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 7.996