Steffie K Naber1, Karen M Kuntz2, Nora B Henrikson3, Marc S Williams4, Ned Calonge5, Katrina A B Goddard6, Doris T Zallen7, Theodore G Ganiats8, Elizabeth M Webber6, A Cecile J W Janssens9, Marjolein van Ballegooijen10, Ann G Zauber11, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar10. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.naber@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 4. Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania. 5. The Colorado Trust, Denver, Colorado. 6. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon. 7. Department of Science and Technology in Society, Virginia Tech, Blacksberg, Virginia. 8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland. 9. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 10. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 11. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Relative risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) decreases with age among individuals with a family history of CRC. However, no screening recommendations specify less frequent screening with increasing age. We aimed to determine whether such a refinement would be cost effective. METHODS: We determined the relative risk for CRC for individuals based on age and number of affected first-degree relatives (FDRs) using data from publications. For each number of affected FDRs, we used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model to estimate costs and effects of colonoscopy screening strategies with different age ranges and intervals. Screening was then optimized sequentially, starting with the youngest age group, and allowing the interval of screening to change at certain ages. Strategies with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year were considered cost effective. RESULTS: For people with 1 affected FDR (92% of those with a family history), screening every 3 years beginning at an age of 40 years is most cost effective. If no adenomas are found, the screening interval can gradually be extended to 5 and 7 years, at ages 45 and 55 years, respectively. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, individuals with more affected FDRs should start screening earlier and at shorter intervals. However, frequency can be reduced if no abnormalities are found. CONCLUSIONS: Using a microsimulation model, we found that for individuals with a family history of CRC, it is cost effective to gradually increase the screening interval if several subsequent screening colonoscopies have negative results and no new cases of CRC are found in family members.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Relative risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) decreases with age among individuals with a family history of CRC. However, no screening recommendations specify less frequent screening with increasing age. We aimed to determine whether such a refinement would be cost effective. METHODS: We determined the relative risk for CRC for individuals based on age and number of affected first-degree relatives (FDRs) using data from publications. For each number of affected FDRs, we used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model to estimate costs and effects of colonoscopy screening strategies with different age ranges and intervals. Screening was then optimized sequentially, starting with the youngest age group, and allowing the interval of screening to change at certain ages. Strategies with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year were considered cost effective. RESULTS: For people with 1 affected FDR (92% of those with a family history), screening every 3 years beginning at an age of 40 years is most cost effective. If no adenomas are found, the screening interval can gradually be extended to 5 and 7 years, at ages 45 and 55 years, respectively. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, individuals with more affected FDRs should start screening earlier and at shorter intervals. However, frequency can be reduced if no abnormalities are found. CONCLUSIONS: Using a microsimulation model, we found that for individuals with a family history of CRC, it is cost effective to gradually increase the screening interval if several subsequent screening colonoscopies have negative results and no new cases of CRC are found in family members.
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: K Robin Yabroff; William W Davis; Elizabeth B Lamont; Angela Fahey; Marie Topor; Martin L Brown; Joan L Warren Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-01-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Dennis J Ahnen; Reinier G S Meester; Afsaneh Barzi; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jennifer S Lin; Margaret A Piper; Leslie A Perdue; Carolyn M Rutter; Elizabeth M Webber; Elizabeth O'Connor; Ning Smith; Evelyn P Whitlock Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Janneke A Wilschut; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique E van Leerdam; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; J Dik F Habbema; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert E Schoen; Anthony Razzak; Kelly J Yu; Sonja I Berndt; Kevin Firl; Thomas L Riley; Paul F Pinsky Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 22.682
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: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Samir Gupta; Balambal Bharti; Dennis J Ahnen; Daniel D Buchanan; Iona C Cheng; Michelle Cotterchio; Jane C Figueiredo; Steven J Gallinger; Robert W Haile; Mark A Jenkins; Noralane M Lindor; Finlay A Macrae; Loïc Le Marchand; Polly A Newcomb; Stephen N Thibodeau; Aung Ko Win; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 6.860