Literature DB >> 31546257

High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Reinier G S Meester1, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar2, Sidney J Winawer3, Ann G Zauber3, Amy B Knudsen4, Uri Ladabaum5.   

Abstract

Background: Surveillance of patients with colorectal adenomas has limited long-term evidence to support current practice. Objective: To compare the lifetime benefits and costs of high- versus low-intensity surveillance. Design: Microsimulation model. Data Sources: U.S. cancer registry, cost data, and published literature. Target Population: U.S. patients aged 50, 60, or 70 years with low-risk adenomas (LRAs) (1 to 2 small adenomas) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs) (3 to 10 small adenomas or ≥1 large adenoma) removed after screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: No further screening or surveillance, routine screening after 10 years, low-intensity surveillance (10 years after LRA removal and 5 years after HRA removal), and high-intensity surveillance (5 years after LRA removal and 3 years after HRA removal). Outcome Measures: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Without surveillance or screening, lifetime CRC incidence for patients aged 50 years was 10.9% after LRA removal and 17.2% after HRA removal at screening colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopic screening, low-intensity surveillance, or high-intensity surveillance decreased incidence by 39%, 46% to 48%, and 55% to 56%, respectively. Incidence of CRC and surveillance benefits were higher for adenomas detected at FIT screening and lower for older patients. High-intensity surveillance cost less than $30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with low-intensity surveillance. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: High-intensity surveillance cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained in most alternative scenarios for adenoma recurrence, CRC incidence, longevity, quality of life, screening ages, surveillance ages, test performance, disutilities, and cost. Limitation: Few surveillance outcome data exist.
Conclusion: The model suggests that high-intensity surveillance as recommended in the United States provides modest but clinically relevant benefits over low-intensity surveillance at acceptable cost. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31546257      PMCID: PMC8115352          DOI: 10.7326/M18-3633

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  62 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

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

Review 2.  Post-Polypectomy Surveillance That Would Please Goldilocks--Not Too Much, Not Too Little, but Just Right.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  United States life tables, 2008.

Authors:  Elizabeth Arias
Journal:  Natl Vital Stat Rep       Date:  2012-09-24

4.  Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Joshua T Cohen; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Magnitude, Risk Factors, and Factors Associated With Adenoma Miss Rate of Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shengbing Zhao; Shuling Wang; Peng Pan; Tian Xia; Xin Chang; Xia Yang; Liliangzi Guo; Qianqian Meng; Fan Yang; Wei Qian; Zhichao Xu; Yuanqiong Wang; Zhijie Wang; Lun Gu; Rundong Wang; Fangzhou Jia; Jun Yao; Zhaoshen Li; Yu Bai
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  The yield of surveillance colonoscopy by adenoma history and time to examination.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; Robert E Schoen; Joel L Weissfeld; Timothy Church; Lance A Yokochi; V Paul Doria-Rose; Philip Prorok
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-07-26       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool.

Authors:  A R Williams; B A Balasooriya; D W Day
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; David G Weiss; William V Harford; Dennis J Ahnen; Dawn Provenzale; Stephen J Sontag; Thomas G Schnell; Gregorio Chejfec; Donald R Campbell; Jayashri Kidao; John H Bond; Douglas B Nelson; George Triadafilopoulos; Francisco C Ramirez; Judith F Collins; Tiina K Johnston; Kenneth R McQuaid; Harinder Garewal; Richard E Sampliner; Romeo Esquivel; Douglas Robertson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.

Authors:  S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Joan L Warren; Carrie N Klabunde; Angela B Mariotto; Angela Meekins; Marie Topor; Martin L Brown; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  3 in total

1.  Defining early recurrence in patients with resected primary colorectal carcinoma and its respective risk factors.

Authors:  Felix Wiesmueller; Rolf Schuetz; Melanie Langheinrich; Maximilian Brunner; Georg F Weber; Robert Grützmann; Susanne Merkel; Christian Krautz
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  The National Polyp Study at 40: challenges then and now.

Authors:  Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Michael J O'Brien; Joseph Geenen; Jerome D Waye
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Impact of assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality in cost-effectiveness analysis; a model exploration.

Authors:  Amir-Houshang Omidvari; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Harry J de Koning; Reinier G S Meester
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 3.752

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.