Literature DB >> 29485322

Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs.

Miriam P van der Meulen1, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar1, S Lucas Goede1, Ernst J Kuipers1, Evelien Dekker1, Jaap Stoker1, Marjolein van Ballegooijen1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting. Materials and Methods Observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening, or COCOS, trial were used in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening. For both tests, the authors determined optimal age range and screening interval combinations assuming a 100% participation rate. Assuming observed participation for these combinations, the cost-effectiveness of both tests was compared. Extracolonic findings were not included because long-term follow-up data are lacking. Results The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5% (1276 of 5924 invitees) and 33.6% (982 of 2920 invitees), respectively. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in the screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings, whereas CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings. CT colonography was the preferred test for willingness-to-pay-thresholds of €3200 per QALY gained and higher, which is lower than the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000. With equal participation, colonoscopy was the preferred test independent of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The findings were robust for most of the sensitivity analyses, except with regard to relative screening costs and subsequent participation. Conclusion Because of the higher participation rates, CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening. The implementation of CT colonography screening requires previous satisfactory resolution to the question as to how best to deal with extracolonic findings. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29485322      PMCID: PMC6716164          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162359

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  16 in total

1.  Improved Sensitivity and Reader Confidence in CT Colonography Using Dual-Layer Spectral CT: A Phantom Study.

Authors:  Markus M Obmann; Chansik An; Amanda Schaefer; Yuxin Sun; Zhen J Wang; Judy Yee; Benjamin M Yeh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Population health impact of extended window thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke.

Authors:  Minerva H Zhou; Akash P Kansagra
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 1.764

3.  Comparison of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes in a screening and diagnostic CT colonography population.

Authors:  Michio Taya; Cody McHargue; Zina J Ricci; Milana Flusberg; Stefanie Weinstein; Judy Yee
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2019-02

4.  Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  He Zhu; Fudong Li; Ke Tao; Jing Wang; Carissa Scurlock; Xiaofei Zhang; Hong Xu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  The Impact of the Policy-Practice Gap on Costs and Benefits of Barrett's Esophagus Management.

Authors:  Amir-Houshang Omidvari; Carlijn A M Roumans; Steffie K Naber; Sonja Kroep; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Ate van der Gaast; Pieter-Jan de Jonge; Manon C W Spaander; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 6.  The Role of Imaging in Health Screening: Screening for Specific Conditions.

Authors:  David H Ballard; Kirsteen R Burton; Nikita Lakomkin; Shannon Kim; Prabhakar Rajiah; Midhir J Patel; Parisa Mazaheri; Gary J Whitman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Deep learning in CT colonography: differentiating premalignant from benign colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Philipp Wesp; Sergio Grosu; Anno Graser; Stefan Maurus; Christian Schulz; Thomas Knösel; Matthias P Fabritius; Balthasar Schachtner; Benjamin M Yeh; Clemens C Cyran; Jens Ricke; Philipp M Kazmierczak; Michael Ingrisch
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 7.034

8.  Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer: a diagnostic performance study.

Authors:  Junping Sha; Jun Chen; Xuguang Lv; Shaoxin Liu; Ruihong Chen; Zhibing Zhang
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 1.930

9.  Quantifying the impact of adherence to screening strategies on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Authors:  Elvira D'Andrea; Dennis J Ahnen; Daniel A Sussman; Mehdi Najafzadeh
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 10.  Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

Authors:  Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Davide Bellini; David Burling; Giovanni Cappello; Cristina Carretero; Evelien Dekker; Rami Eliakim; Margriet de Haan; Michal F Kaminski; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Martina Morrin; Deirdre McNamara; Emanuele Neri; Silvia Pecere; Mathieu Pioche; Andrew Plumb; Emanuele Rondonotti; Manon Cw Spaander; Stuart Taylor; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jaap Stoker; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.