OBJECTIVES: Real-world patterns of surveillance testing in colorectal cancer (CRC) and the effects on health and cost outcomes are largely unknown. Our objectives were to (1) assess trends in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, CT scans, and colonoscopy utilization and (2) examine the value of CEA testing intensity by characterizing receipt of curative treatment for recurrence and measuring direct medical costs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: We used an IBM MarketScan database to identify patients with a diagnosis of and treatment for CRC between 2008 and 2015. We used a negative binomial model to assess utilization of CEA testing and logistic models to assess utilization of CT scans and colonoscopies. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to assess surveillance intensity and time to curative treatment. We estimated direct medical costs using the Kaplan-Meier sample average estimator to account for censored costs. RESULTS: We identified 3197 eligible patients. The mean numbers of CEA tests, CT scans, and colonoscopies remained relatively constant in the study period, but adherence to guidelines varied by surveillance. When categorizing individuals by their CEA utilization adherence to guidelines (perfect utilizers and overutilizers), overutilizers had an HR for curative treatment of 2.11 (95% CI, 1.46-3.05) relative to perfect utilizers. Although overutilizers underwent potentially curative procedures for recurrence at higher rates compared with perfect utilizers, direct medical costs were much higher in the overutilizer group. CONCLUSIONS: Higher intensity of surveillance, beyond what is recommended by guidelines, may lead to earlier recurrence detection and subsequent treatment, but this is associated with significantly higher direct medical costs.
OBJECTIVES: Real-world patterns of surveillance testing in colorectal cancer (CRC) and the effects on health and cost outcomes are largely unknown. Our objectives were to (1) assess trends in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, CT scans, and colonoscopy utilization and (2) examine the value of CEA testing intensity by characterizing receipt of curative treatment for recurrence and measuring direct medical costs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: We used an IBM MarketScan database to identify patients with a diagnosis of and treatment for CRC between 2008 and 2015. We used a negative binomial model to assess utilization of CEA testing and logistic models to assess utilization of CT scans and colonoscopies. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to assess surveillance intensity and time to curative treatment. We estimated direct medical costs using the Kaplan-Meier sample average estimator to account for censored costs. RESULTS: We identified 3197 eligible patients. The mean numbers of CEA tests, CT scans, and colonoscopies remained relatively constant in the study period, but adherence to guidelines varied by surveillance. When categorizing individuals by their CEA utilization adherence to guidelines (perfect utilizers and overutilizers), overutilizers had an HR for curative treatment of 2.11 (95% CI, 1.46-3.05) relative to perfect utilizers. Although overutilizers underwent potentially curative procedures for recurrence at higher rates compared with perfect utilizers, direct medical costs were much higher in the overutilizer group. CONCLUSIONS: Higher intensity of surveillance, beyond what is recommended by guidelines, may lead to earlier recurrence detection and subsequent treatment, but this is associated with significantly higher direct medical costs.
Authors: Charles J Kahi; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas J Robertson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Omar Hyder; Rebecca M Dodson; Skye C Mayo; Eric B Schneider; Matthew J Weiss; Joseph M Herman; Christopher L Wolfgang; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Dorin T Colibaseanu; Kellie L Mathis; Zaid M Abdelsattar; Zaid M Abdelsatter; David W Larson; Michael G Haddock; Eric J Dozois Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Michel Gonzalez; Antoine Poncet; Christophe Combescure; John Robert; Hans Beat Ris; Pascal Gervaz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-10-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: John N Primrose; Rafael Perera; Alastair Gray; Peter Rose; Alice Fuller; Andrea Corkhill; Steve George; David Mant Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gena P Kanas; Aliki Taylor; John N Primrose; Wendy J Langeberg; Michael A Kelsh; Fionna S Mowat; Dominik D Alexander; Michael A Choti; Graeme Poston Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Sonia S Kupfer; Sam Lubner; Emmanuel Coronel; Perry J Pickhardt; Matthew Tipping; Peter Graffy; Eileen Keenan; Eric Ross; Tianyu Li; David S Weinberg Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 4.452