Loading…

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography : The impact of not reporting diminutive lesions

Prior cost-effectiveness models analyzing computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening have assumed that patients with diminutive lesions (or=6 mm. The purpose of the current study was to assess the potential harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of CTC screening without the reporting of dimin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cancer 2007-06, Vol.109 (11), p.2213-2221
Main Authors: PICKHARDT, Perry J, HASSAN, Cesare, LAGHI, Andrea, ZULLO, Angelo, KIM, David H, MORINI, Sergio
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-1c31a19b91cc59cd02dcb705feb48caf9616355fbcd1bc1a5d441e87e7e9d28a3
container_end_page 2221
container_issue 11
container_start_page 2213
container_title Cancer
container_volume 109
creator PICKHARDT, Perry J
HASSAN, Cesare
LAGHI, Andrea
ZULLO, Angelo
KIM, David H
MORINI, Sergio
description Prior cost-effectiveness models analyzing computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening have assumed that patients with diminutive lesions (or=6 mm. The purpose of the current study was to assess the potential harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of CTC screening without the reporting of diminutive lesions compared with other screening strategies. The cost-effectiveness of screening with CTC (with and without a 6-mm reporting threshold), OC, and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) were evaluated using a Markov model applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 persons age 50 years. The model predicted an overall cost per life-year gained relative to no screening of $4361, $7138, $7407, and $9180, respectively, for CTC with a 6-mm reporting threshold, CTC with no threshold, FS, and OC. The incremental costs associated with reporting diminutive lesions at the time of CTC amounted to $118,440 per additional life-year gained, whereas the incidence of colorectal cancer was reduced by only 1.3% (from 36.5% to 37.8%). Compared with primary OC screening, CTC with a 6-mm threshold resulted in a 77.6% reduction in invasive endoscopic procedures (39,374 compared with 175,911) and 1112 fewer reported OC-related complications from perforation or bleeding. CTC with nonreporting of diminutive lesions was found to be the most cost-effective and safest screening option evaluated, thereby providing further support for this approach. Overall, the removal of diminutive lesions appears to carry an unjustified burden of costs and complications relative to the minimal gain in clinical efficacy.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/cncr.22668
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70531776</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70531776</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-1c31a19b91cc59cd02dcb705feb48caf9616355fbcd1bc1a5d441e87e7e9d28a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkMFO3DAQQK2qCBbKpR9Q-VIOSAHbieOkt2oFBQmpF5B6i5zJmHWV2KntUPEHfHYd2IqTNdabN9Ij5DNnF5wxcQkOwoUQdd18IBvOWlUwXomPZMMYawpZlb-OyHGMv_OohCwPyRFXlZSCNxvysvUxFWgMQrJP6DBG6g0FP_qQv_RIQTvAQCMERGfdI_1r0y4D07wkHGjyk38Met49vy65_8M3er9DaqdZQ1qNzicacPYhrY7BTtYt60U6YrTexU_kwOgx4un-PSEP11f325vi7ueP2-33uwKEqlLBoeSat33LAWQLAxMD9IpJg33VgDZtzetSStPDwHvgWg5VxbFRqLAdRKPLE3L25p2D_7NgTN1kI-A4aod-iV12lVypOoPnbyAEH2NA083BTjo8d5x1a_du7d69ds_wl7116Scc3tF96Ax83QM6gh5NyFVtfOeafLEWrPwH2XGPrw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70531776</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography : The impact of not reporting diminutive lesions</title><source>Wiley</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>PICKHARDT, Perry J ; HASSAN, Cesare ; LAGHI, Andrea ; ZULLO, Angelo ; KIM, David H ; MORINI, Sergio</creator><creatorcontrib>PICKHARDT, Perry J ; HASSAN, Cesare ; LAGHI, Andrea ; ZULLO, Angelo ; KIM, David H ; MORINI, Sergio</creatorcontrib><description>Prior cost-effectiveness models analyzing computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening have assumed that patients with diminutive lesions (&lt;or=5 mm) will be referred to optical colonoscopy (OC) for polypectomy. However, consensus guidelines for CTC recommend reporting only polyps measuring &gt;or=6 mm. The purpose of the current study was to assess the potential harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of CTC screening without the reporting of diminutive lesions compared with other screening strategies. The cost-effectiveness of screening with CTC (with and without a 6-mm reporting threshold), OC, and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) were evaluated using a Markov model applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 persons age 50 years. The model predicted an overall cost per life-year gained relative to no screening of $4361, $7138, $7407, and $9180, respectively, for CTC with a 6-mm reporting threshold, CTC with no threshold, FS, and OC. The incremental costs associated with reporting diminutive lesions at the time of CTC amounted to $118,440 per additional life-year gained, whereas the incidence of colorectal cancer was reduced by only 1.3% (from 36.5% to 37.8%). Compared with primary OC screening, CTC with a 6-mm threshold resulted in a 77.6% reduction in invasive endoscopic procedures (39,374 compared with 175,911) and 1112 fewer reported OC-related complications from perforation or bleeding. CTC with nonreporting of diminutive lesions was found to be the most cost-effective and safest screening option evaluated, thereby providing further support for this approach. Overall, the removal of diminutive lesions appears to carry an unjustified burden of costs and complications relative to the minimal gain in clinical efficacy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-543X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0142</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22668</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17455218</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CANCAR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Wiley-Liss</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biological and medical sciences ; Colonic Polyps - diagnostic imaging ; Colonic Polyps - economics ; Colonography, Computed Tomographic - economics ; Colonoscopy - economics ; Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Colorectal Neoplasms - economics ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen ; Humans ; Italy ; Mass Screening ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sigmoidoscopy - economics ; Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Cancer, 2007-06, Vol.109 (11), p.2213-2221</ispartof><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>(c) 2007 American Cancer Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-1c31a19b91cc59cd02dcb705feb48caf9616355fbcd1bc1a5d441e87e7e9d28a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=18763620$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17455218$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>PICKHARDT, Perry J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HASSAN, Cesare</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LAGHI, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ZULLO, Angelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KIM, David H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MORINI, Sergio</creatorcontrib><title>Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography : The impact of not reporting diminutive lesions</title><title>Cancer</title><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><description>Prior cost-effectiveness models analyzing computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening have assumed that patients with diminutive lesions (&lt;or=5 mm) will be referred to optical colonoscopy (OC) for polypectomy. However, consensus guidelines for CTC recommend reporting only polyps measuring &gt;or=6 mm. The purpose of the current study was to assess the potential harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of CTC screening without the reporting of diminutive lesions compared with other screening strategies. The cost-effectiveness of screening with CTC (with and without a 6-mm reporting threshold), OC, and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) were evaluated using a Markov model applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 persons age 50 years. The model predicted an overall cost per life-year gained relative to no screening of $4361, $7138, $7407, and $9180, respectively, for CTC with a 6-mm reporting threshold, CTC with no threshold, FS, and OC. The incremental costs associated with reporting diminutive lesions at the time of CTC amounted to $118,440 per additional life-year gained, whereas the incidence of colorectal cancer was reduced by only 1.3% (from 36.5% to 37.8%). Compared with primary OC screening, CTC with a 6-mm threshold resulted in a 77.6% reduction in invasive endoscopic procedures (39,374 compared with 175,911) and 1112 fewer reported OC-related complications from perforation or bleeding. CTC with nonreporting of diminutive lesions was found to be the most cost-effective and safest screening option evaluated, thereby providing further support for this approach. Overall, the removal of diminutive lesions appears to carry an unjustified burden of costs and complications relative to the minimal gain in clinical efficacy.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Colonic Polyps - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Colonic Polyps - economics</subject><subject>Colonography, Computed Tomographic - economics</subject><subject>Colonoscopy - economics</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - economics</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Italy</subject><subject>Mass Screening</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sigmoidoscopy - economics</subject><subject>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0008-543X</issn><issn>1097-0142</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkMFO3DAQQK2qCBbKpR9Q-VIOSAHbieOkt2oFBQmpF5B6i5zJmHWV2KntUPEHfHYd2IqTNdabN9Ij5DNnF5wxcQkOwoUQdd18IBvOWlUwXomPZMMYawpZlb-OyHGMv_OohCwPyRFXlZSCNxvysvUxFWgMQrJP6DBG6g0FP_qQv_RIQTvAQCMERGfdI_1r0y4D07wkHGjyk38Met49vy65_8M3er9DaqdZQ1qNzicacPYhrY7BTtYt60U6YrTexU_kwOgx4un-PSEP11f325vi7ueP2-33uwKEqlLBoeSat33LAWQLAxMD9IpJg33VgDZtzetSStPDwHvgWg5VxbFRqLAdRKPLE3L25p2D_7NgTN1kI-A4aod-iV12lVypOoPnbyAEH2NA083BTjo8d5x1a_du7d69ds_wl7116Scc3tF96Ax83QM6gh5NyFVtfOeafLEWrPwH2XGPrw</recordid><startdate>20070601</startdate><enddate>20070601</enddate><creator>PICKHARDT, Perry J</creator><creator>HASSAN, Cesare</creator><creator>LAGHI, Andrea</creator><creator>ZULLO, Angelo</creator><creator>KIM, David H</creator><creator>MORINI, Sergio</creator><general>Wiley-Liss</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070601</creationdate><title>Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography : The impact of not reporting diminutive lesions</title><author>PICKHARDT, Perry J ; HASSAN, Cesare ; LAGHI, Andrea ; ZULLO, Angelo ; KIM, David H ; MORINI, Sergio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-1c31a19b91cc59cd02dcb705feb48caf9616355fbcd1bc1a5d441e87e7e9d28a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Colonic Polyps - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Colonic Polyps - economics</topic><topic>Colonography, Computed Tomographic - economics</topic><topic>Colonoscopy - economics</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - economics</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Italy</topic><topic>Mass Screening</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sigmoidoscopy - economics</topic><topic>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>PICKHARDT, Perry J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HASSAN, Cesare</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LAGHI, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ZULLO, Angelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KIM, David H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MORINI, Sergio</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>PICKHARDT, Perry J</au><au>HASSAN, Cesare</au><au>LAGHI, Andrea</au><au>ZULLO, Angelo</au><au>KIM, David H</au><au>MORINI, Sergio</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography : The impact of not reporting diminutive lesions</atitle><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><date>2007-06-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>109</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2213</spage><epage>2221</epage><pages>2213-2221</pages><issn>0008-543X</issn><eissn>1097-0142</eissn><coden>CANCAR</coden><abstract>Prior cost-effectiveness models analyzing computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening have assumed that patients with diminutive lesions (&lt;or=5 mm) will be referred to optical colonoscopy (OC) for polypectomy. However, consensus guidelines for CTC recommend reporting only polyps measuring &gt;or=6 mm. The purpose of the current study was to assess the potential harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of CTC screening without the reporting of diminutive lesions compared with other screening strategies. The cost-effectiveness of screening with CTC (with and without a 6-mm reporting threshold), OC, and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) were evaluated using a Markov model applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 persons age 50 years. The model predicted an overall cost per life-year gained relative to no screening of $4361, $7138, $7407, and $9180, respectively, for CTC with a 6-mm reporting threshold, CTC with no threshold, FS, and OC. The incremental costs associated with reporting diminutive lesions at the time of CTC amounted to $118,440 per additional life-year gained, whereas the incidence of colorectal cancer was reduced by only 1.3% (from 36.5% to 37.8%). Compared with primary OC screening, CTC with a 6-mm threshold resulted in a 77.6% reduction in invasive endoscopic procedures (39,374 compared with 175,911) and 1112 fewer reported OC-related complications from perforation or bleeding. CTC with nonreporting of diminutive lesions was found to be the most cost-effective and safest screening option evaluated, thereby providing further support for this approach. Overall, the removal of diminutive lesions appears to carry an unjustified burden of costs and complications relative to the minimal gain in clinical efficacy.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Wiley-Liss</pub><pmid>17455218</pmid><doi>10.1002/cncr.22668</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-543X
ispartof Cancer, 2007-06, Vol.109 (11), p.2213-2221
issn 0008-543X
1097-0142
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70531776
source Wiley; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biological and medical sciences
Colonic Polyps - diagnostic imaging
Colonic Polyps - economics
Colonography, Computed Tomographic - economics
Colonoscopy - economics
Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Colorectal Neoplasms - economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen
Humans
Italy
Mass Screening
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sigmoidoscopy - economics
Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus
Tumors
title Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography : The impact of not reporting diminutive lesions
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T17%3A19%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-effectiveness%20of%20colorectal%20cancer%20screening%20with%20computed%20tomography%20colonography%20:%20The%20impact%20of%20not%20reporting%20diminutive%20lesions&rft.jtitle=Cancer&rft.au=PICKHARDT,%20Perry%20J&rft.date=2007-06-01&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2213&rft.epage=2221&rft.pages=2213-2221&rft.issn=0008-543X&rft.eissn=1097-0142&rft.coden=CANCAR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cncr.22668&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70531776%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-1c31a19b91cc59cd02dcb705feb48caf9616355fbcd1bc1a5d441e87e7e9d28a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70531776&rft_id=info:pmid/17455218&rfr_iscdi=true