Search

Objective: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers., Design: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles., Results: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states ( phase I ), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations ( phase II ). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence., Conclusion: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Board membership: TRL, RES, LG, FM, CS, RS, H-MC, ED, AK, HS, GAM, SI. Consultancy: LG, UL, GPY, FM, JM, SG, ED, AK, HS, SI. Expert testimony: FM. Grants or contract research: RSB, TRL, RES, FM, RS, FM, ED, ML, GAM, LC. Lectures/Other education events: LG, FM, H-MC, ED, AK. Patents: GPY, RSB, BC, AK, GAM. Receipt of equipment or supplies: LG, RES, ED, ML, GAM. Stock/Stock options: GPY, UL, JM, SG, ED, AK, GAM. Other professional relationships: GPY, SG., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The rates of serious cardiac, neurologic, and pulmonary events attributable to colonoscopy are poorly characterized, and background event rates are usually not accounted for., Methods: We performed a multistate population-based study using changepoint analysis to determine the rates and timing of serious gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal adverse events associated with screening/surveillance colonoscopy, including analyses by age (45 to <55, 55 to <65, 65 to <75, and ≥75 years). Among 4.5 million persons in the Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases of California, Florida, and New York who underwent screening/surveillance colonoscopy in 2005-2015, we ascertained serious postcolonoscopy events in excess of background rates in Emergency Department (SEDD) and Inpatient Databases (SID)., Results: Most serious nongastrointestinal postcolonoscopy events were expected based on the background rate and not associated with colonoscopy itself. However, associated nongastrointestinal events predominated over gastrointestinal events at ages ≥65 years, including more myocardial infarctions plus ischemic strokes than perforations at ages ≥75 years (361 [95% confidence intervals {CI} 312-419] plus 1,279 [95% CI 1,182-1,384] vs 912 [95% CI 831-1,002] per million). At all ages, the observed-to-expected ratios for days 0-7, 0-30, and 0-60 after colonoscopy were substantially >1 for gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation, but minimally >1 for most nongastrointestinal complications. Risk periods ranged from 1 to 125 days depending on complication type and age. No excess postcolonoscopy in-hospital deaths were observed., Discussion: Although crude counts substantially overestimate nongastrointestinal events associated with colonoscopy, nongastrointestinal complications exceed bleeding and perforation risk in older persons. The inability to ascertain modifications to antiplatelet therapy was a study limitation. Our results can inform benefit-to-risk determinations for preventive colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Global increases in colorectal cancer risk have spurred debate about optimal use of screening resources. We explored the potential clinical and economic impact of colorectal cancer screening tailored to predicted colorectal cancer risk., Methods: We compared screening tailored to predicted risk versus uniform screening in a validated decision analytic model, considering the average risk population's actual colorectal cancer risk distribution, and a risk-prediction tool's discriminatory ability and cost. Low, moderate, and high risk tiers were identified as colorectal cancer risk after age 50 years of ≤3%, >3 to <12%, and ≥12%, respectively, based on threshold analyses with willingness-to-pay <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Tailored colonoscopy (once at age 60 years for low risk, every 10 years for moderate risk, and every 5 years for high risk) was compared with colonoscopy every 10 years for all. Tailored fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)/colonoscopy (annual FIT for low and moderate risk, colonoscopy every 5 years for high risk) was compared with annual FIT for all., Results: Assuming no colorectal cancer risk misclassification or risk-prediction tool costs, tailored screening was preferred over uniform screening. Tailored colonoscopy was minimally less effective than uniform colonoscopy, but saved $90,200-$889,000/QALY; tailored FIT/colonoscopy yielded more QALYs/person than annual FIT at $10,600-$60,000/QALY gained. Relatively modest colorectal cancer risk misclassification rates or risk-prediction tool costs resulted in uniform screening as the preferred approach., Conclusions: Current risk-prediction tools may not yet be accurate enough to optimize colorectal cancer screening., Impact: Uniform screening is likely to be preferred over tailored screening if a risk-prediction tool is associated with even modest misclassification rates or costs., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related death despite being highly preventable. Efforts to increase participation in CRC screening have not met national goals. We developed a novel approach: building a business case for philanthropic investment in CRC screening., Methods: A taskforce representing the public health community, professional societies, charitable foundations, academia, and industry was assembled to: (a) quantify the impact of improving CRC screening rates; (b) identify barriers to screening; (c) estimate the "activation cost" to overcome barriers and screen one additional person; (d) develop a holistic business case that is attractive to philanthropists; and (e) launch a demonstration project., Results: We estimated that of 50 600 CRC deaths annually in the US, 55% occur in 50- to 85-year-olds and are potentially addressable by improvements in CRC screening. Barriers to screening were identified in all patient journey phases, including lack of awareness or insurance and logistical challenges in the pre-physician phase. The cost to activate one person to undergo screening was $25-175. This translated into a cost of $6000-36 000 per CRC death averted by philanthropic investment. Based on this work, the Colorectal Cancer Alliance launched the effort "March Forth" to prevent 100 000 CRC deaths in the US over 10 years, with the first pilot in Philadelphia., Conclusions: A holistic business plan can attract philanthropy to promote CRC screening. A simple message of "You can save a life from CRC with a $25 000 donation" can motivate demonstration projects in regions with high CRC rates and low screening participation., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible people remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines recommend screening all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) for Lynch syndrome (LS). However, the efficiency of universal LS screening in elderly populations has not been well studied., Objective: To compare the performance of age-restricted and universal LS screening using reflex mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) of CRC tumors., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: A large, diverse, community-based health care system., Participants: 3891 persons with newly diagnosed CRC who had LS screening between 2011 and 2016., Measurements: Diagnostic yield of different LS screening strategies., Results: Sixty-three LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.62%) were identified by universal screening, with only 5 (7.9%) detected after age 70 years and 1 (1.6%) detected after age 80 years. When all patients with CRC who had universal screening were used as the denominator, 58 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.49% [95% CI, 1.13% to 1.92%]) were identified in patients with CRC diagnosed at or before age 70 years, 60 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.54% [CI, 1.18% to 1.98%]) were identified in those with CRC diagnosed at or before age 75 years, and 62 LS cases (diagnostic yield, 1.59% [CI, 1.22% to 2.04%]) were identified in those with CRC diagnosed at or before age 80 years. Using 75 years as the upper age limit for screening missed 3 of 63 (4.8%) LS cases but resulted in 1053 (27.1%) fewer cases requiring tumor MMR IHC. Using 80 years as the upper age limit missed 1 of 63 (1.6%) LS cases and resulted in 668 (17.2%) fewer cases requiring tumor MMR IHC., Limitation: Persons who were eligible for but did not complete germline analysis were excluded from calculations of performance characteristics., Conclusion: The incremental diagnostic yield decreased substantially after age 70 to 75 years. Stopping reflex CRC screening for LS after age 80 years may be reasonable because of very low efficiency, particularly in resource-limited settings, but this merits further investigation. Studies evaluating the effect of diagnosing LS in elderly persons on their family members are needed., Primary Funding Source: Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research.

Background: Although cancer screening reduces morbidity and mortality, millions of people worldwide remain unscreened. Social media provide a unique platform to understand public sentiment toward tools that are commonly used for cancer screening., Objective: The objective of our study was to examine public sentiment toward colonoscopy, mammography, and Pap smear and how this sentiment spreads by analyzing discourse on Twitter., Methods: In this observational study, we classified 32,847 tweets (online postings on Twitter) related to colonoscopy, mammography, or Pap smears using a naive Bayes algorithm as containing positive, negative, or neutral sentiment. Additionally, we characterized the spread of sentiment on Twitter using an established model to study contagion., Results: Colonoscopy-related tweets were more likely to express negative than positive sentiment (negative to positive ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.51-1.80, P<.001), in contrast to the more positive sentiment expressed regarding mammography (negative to positive ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.39-0.47, P<.001). The proportions of negative versus positive tweets about Pap smear were not significantly different (negative to positive ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.04, P=.18). Positive and negative tweets tended to share lexical features across screening modalities. Positive tweets expressed resonance with the benefits of early detection. Fear and pain were the principal lexical features seen in negative tweets. Negative sentiment for colonoscopy and mammography spread more than positive sentiment; no correlation with sentiment and spread was seen for Pap smear., Conclusions: Analysis of social media data provides a unique, quantitative framework to better understand the public's perception of medical interventions that are commonly used for cancer screening. Given the growing use of social media, public health interventions to improve cancer screening should use the health perceptions of the population as expressed in social network postings about tests that are frequently used for cancer screening, as well as other people they may influence with such postings., (©Omar Metwally, Seth Blumberg, Uri Ladabaum, Sidhartha R. Sinha. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 07.06.2017.)

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Screening can reduce CRC mortality and incidence, and numerous screening options, although available, complicate informed decision making. This review provides evidence-based tools for primary care physicians to identify patients with higher-than-average-risk and engage patients in informed decision making about CRC screening options., Observations: Recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended any of 8 CRC screening approaches for average-risk individuals, beginning at age 50 years. Only 2 methods have been shown in randomized clinical trials to reduce mortality: fecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Of the 8 programs, screenings using the fecal immunochemical test annually and colonoscopy every 10 years are now the most commonly used tests in the United States and among the most effective in reducing CRC mortality as determined by decision models. With the exception of primary screening using colonoscopy, all of the other screening approaches have multiple steps. Adherence to each phase of a multistep program is critical to achieving maximal effectiveness of the screening program. It is likely that each of the recommended programs can reduce CRC mortality, but other key outcomes may differ such as lifetime burden of colonoscopy, complications, patient acceptance, and cost. Decisions about the timing of screening cessation should be individualized., Conclusions and Relevance: CRC screening is effective if patients adhere to the steps in each screening program. There is no evidence that one program is superior to another. Informed decision-making tools are provided to assist patients and clinicians with the goal of improving adherence to effective screening.

Background & Aims: We developed a model to determine whether a multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test that detects colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps with higher sensitivity and lower specificity, but at a higher cost, than the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used in screening., Methods: We used a Markov model of average-risk CRC screening to compare the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening with the MT-sDNA test vs FIT or colonoscopy. We accounted for the complex longitudinal participation patterns observed in organized programs vs opportunistic screening, as well as organized programs' patient support costs and differential payment rates by commercial insurers vs Medicare., Results: With optimal adherence, yearly FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years were dominant (more effective and less costly) than MT-sDNA every 3 years. Compared with successful organized FIT programs (50% consistent and 27% intermittent participation; patient support costs, $153/cycle), the patient support program for the MT-sDNA test would need 68% of subjects to participate consistently and 32% to participate intermittently every 3 years, or the MT-sDNA test would need to cost 60% less than in the base case ($260 commercial payment and $197 Medicare payment), for the MT-sDNA test to be preferred over FIT at a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared with opportunistic yearly FIT screening (15% consistent and 30% intermittent participation), performing the MT-sDNA test every 3 years would cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained if the MT-sDNA test achieved a participation rate more than 1.7-fold that of FIT. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Assuming equal participation across strategies and a threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, FIT was preferred in 99.3% of iterations in Monte Carlo simulation., Conclusions: In a Markov model, we found FIT and colonoscopy to be more effective and less costly than the MT-sDNA test when participation rates were equal for all strategies. For the MT-sDNA test to be cost effective, the patient support program included in its cost would need to achieve substantially higher participation rates than those of FIT, whether in organized programs or under the opportunistic screening setting that is more common in the United States than in the rest of the world., (Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient navigation (PN) is being used increasingly to help patients complete screening colonoscopy (SC) to prevent colorectal cancer. At their large, urban academic medical center with an open-access endoscopy system, the authors previously demonstrated that PN programs produced a colonoscopy completion rate of 78.5% in a cohort of 503 patients (predominantly African Americans and Latinos with public health insurance). Very little is known about the direct costs of implementing PN programs. The objective of the current study was to perform a detailed cost analysis of PN programs at the authors' institution from an institutional perspective., Methods: In 2 randomized controlled trials, average-risk patients who were referred for SC by primary care providers were recruited for PN between May 2008 and May 2010. Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 PN groups. The cost of PN and net income to the institution were determined in a cost analysis., Results: Among 395 patients who completed colonoscopy, 53.4% underwent SC alone, 30.1% underwent colonoscopy with biopsy, and 16.5% underwent snare polypectomy. Accounting for the average contribution margins of each procedure type, the total revenue was $95,266.00. The total cost of PN was $14,027.30. Net income was $81,238.70. In a model sample of 1000 patients, net incomes for the institutional completion rate (approximately 80%), the historic PN program (approximately 65%), and the national average (approximately 50%) were compared. The current PN program generated additional net incomes of $35,035.50 and $44,956.00, respectively., Conclusions: PN among minority patients with mostly public health insurance generated additional income to the institution, mainly because of increased colonoscopy completion rates., (Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Patients and relatives have varying preferences for genetic testing and interventions related to hereditary cancer syndromes. We examined how the impact of these services on quality of life (QoL) affects the cost-effectiveness of screening for Lynch syndrome among probands newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer and their relatives., Methods: We constructed a state-transition model comparing screening strategies (clinical criteria, prediction algorithms, tumor testing, and upfront germline testing) with no screening to identify Lynch syndrome. The model incorporated individuals' health state utilities after screening, germline testing, and risk-reducing surgeries, with utilities persisting for 12 months in the base case. Outcomes consisted of quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), costs, and cost per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses assessed how the duration and magnitude of changes in QoL influenced results., Results: Multiple screening strategies yielded gains in QALYs at acceptable costs compared with no screening. The preferred strategy-immunohistochemistry of tumors followed by BRAF mutation testing (IHC/BRAF)-cost $59,700 per QALY gained in the base case. The duration and magnitude of decreases in QoL after decisions related to germline testing and surgeries were key determinants of the cost-effectiveness of screening. IHC/BRAF cost >$100,000 per QALY gained when decrements to QoL persisted for 21 months., Conclusion: Screening for Lynch syndrome in the population is likely to yield long-term gains in life expectancy that outweigh any short-term decreases in QoL, at acceptable costs. Counseling for individuals should aim to mitigate potential negative impact of genetic testing and risk-reducing interventions on QoL.

Background: The European Community has made a commitment to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but regional considerations may affect the design of national screening programs. We developed a decision analytic model tailored to a pilot screening program for high-risk persons in Spain with the aim of informing public policy decisions., Materials and Methods: We constructed a decision analytic Markov model based on our validated model of CRC screening that reflected CRC epidemiology and costs in persons with first-degree relatives with CRC in Aragón, Spain, and superimposed colonoscopy every 5 or 10 years from ages 40 to 80 years. The pilot program's preliminary clinical results and our modeling results were presented to regional health authorities., Results: In the model, without screening, 88 CRC cases occurred per 1,000 persons from age 40 to 85 years. In the base case, screening reduced this by 72% to 77% and gained 0.12 discounted life years per person. Screening every 10 years was cost saving, and screening every 5 years versus every 10 years cost 7,250 euros per life year gained. Based on these savings, 36 to 39 euros per person per year could go toward operating costs while maintaining a neutral budget. If screening costs doubled, screening remained highly cost-effective but no longer cost saving. These results contributed to the health authorities' decision to expand the pilot program to the entire region in 2009., Conclusions: Colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of persons with CRC may be cost saving in public systems like that of Spain. Decision analytic modeling tailored to regional considerations can inform public policy decisions., Impact: Tailored decision analytic modeling can inform regional policy decisions on cancer screening., (©2010 AACR.)

Background: Colorectal cancer screening and treatment are rapidly evolving. Aims To reappraise stool-based colorectal cancer screening in light of changing test performance characteristics, lower test cost and increasing colorectal cancer care costs., Methods: Using a Markov model, we compared faecal DNA testing every 3 years, annual faecal occult blood testing or immunochemical testing, and colonoscopy every 10 years., Results: In the base case, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing gained life-years/person and cost less than no screening. Faecal DNA testing version 1.1 at $300 (the current PreGen Plus test) gained 5323 life-years/100 000 persons at $16 900/life-year gained and faecal DNA testing version 2 (enhanced test) gained 5795 life-years/100 000 persons at $15 700/life-year gained vs. no screening. In the base case and most sensitivity analyses, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing were preferred to faecal DNA testing. Faecal DNA testing version 2 cost $100 000/life-year gained vs. faecal immunochemical testing when per-cycle adherence with faecal immunochemical testing was 22%. Faecal immunochemical testing with excellent adherence was superior to colonoscopy every 10 years., Conclusions: As novel biological therapies increase colorectal cancer treatment costs, faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing could become cost-saving. The cost-effectiveness of faecal DNA testing compared with no screening has improved, but faecal occult blood testing and faecal immunochemical testing are preferred to faecal DNA testing when patient adherence is high. Faecal immunochemical testing may be comparable to colonoscopy every 10 years in persons adhering to yearly testing.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rises with age, and most CRC arises from adenomatous polyps. It was therefore hypothesized that increased use of CRC screening and polypectomy in younger persons might yield CRC-related savings later in life for payers such as Medicare., Methods: Using a decision analytic Markov model, the impact of increased CRC screening uptake on healthcare payers for younger Americans versus payers for older Americans, such as Medicare, was projected., Results: As screening uptake increased, CRC incidence and mortality decreased, and annual costs related to CRC care and testing increased for younger persons, but decreased for older persons. Compared with current screening uptake of 40%, screening 75% of the U.S. population aged 50 to 80 increased annual costs related to CRC care and testing from 3.6 billion US dollars to 5.0 billion US dollars for 50- to 64-year-olds, but decreased annual costs from 5.9 billion US dollars to 5.6 billion US dollars for those aged 65 years and older. Sensitivity analyses suggest that future costs for other diseases could offset CRC care savings in older Americans that are attributable to screening. However, even without net cost savings for any age group, screening remained relatively cost-effective., Conclusions: Investments in screening and polypectomy in younger persons may decrease CRC-related costs, including screening and surveillance, for healthcare payers for older Americans, including Medicare. While these savings could potentially be offset by future health costs for other diseases, screening would still be cost-effective. Widespread CRC screening beginning at age 50 must remain a national priority.

Background & Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective and cost-effective, but the potential national impact of widespread screening is uncertain. It is controversial whether screening colonoscopy can be offered widely and how emerging tests may impact health services demand. Our aim was to produce integrated, comprehensive estimates of the impact of widespread screening on national clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand., Methods: We used a Markov model and census data to estimate the national consequences of screening 75% of the US population with conventional and emerging strategies., Results: Screening decreased CRC incidence by 17%-54% to as few as 66,000 cases per year and CRC mortality by 28%-60% to as few as 23,000 deaths per year. With no screening, total annual national CRC-related expenditures were 8.4 US billion dollars. With screening, expenditures for CRC care decreased by 1.5-4.4 US billion dollars but total expenditures increased to 9.2-15.4 US billion dollars. Screening colonoscopy every 10 years required 8.1 million colonoscopies per year including surveillance, with other strategies requiring 17%-58% as many colonoscopies. With improved screening uptake, total colonoscopy demand increased in general, even assuming substantial use of virtual colonoscopy., Conclusions: Despite savings in CRC care, widespread screening is unlikely to be cost saving and may increase national expenditures by 0.8-2.8 US billion dollars per year with conventional tests. The current national endoscopic capacity, as recently estimated, may be adequate to support widespread use of screening colonoscopy in the steady state. The impact of emerging tests on colonoscopy demand will depend on the extent to which they replace screening colonoscopy or increase screening uptake in the population.

Background & Aims: When optimized, virtual colonoscopy may be highly sensitive for colorectal neoplasia. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of virtual colonoscopy screening (VC) vs. colonoscopy screening (COLO) and the potential impact at the national level., Methods: Using a Markov model, we estimated the clinical and economic consequences of VC and COLO from ages 50 to 80 years. Using census data, we made projections to the national level., Results: In the best case considered (95%, 94%, and 87% sensitivity for colorectal cancer [CRC], polyps > or =10 mm, and polyps <10 mm), VC was nearly as effective as COLO. However, if test costs were equal, total cost per person was 15% greater for VC than COLO, making COLO dominant. When test cost for VC was < or =60% of test cost for COLO, the small benefit of COLO vs. VC cost >200,000 US dollars/incremental life-year. The greater the likelihood of being referred for colonoscopy after VC, the greater the advantage of COLO. With 75% screening adherence in the United States, VC and COLO could decrease CRC incidence by 46%-54%, with COLO requiring 6.9 million colonoscopies/yr, and VC, 3.2 million colonoscopies/yr, plus 5.4 million virtual colonoscopies/yr with VC., Conclusions: Even if screening test sensitivities were similar, COLO is likely to be preferred over VC unless virtual colonoscopy costs significantly less than colonoscopy. VC may be most appropriate in persons unlikely to need colonoscopy, such as those at low CRC risk. If VC were substituted for COLO, the demand on resources would shift from endoscopic to radiologic services, but would not diminish.

Background & Aims: Fecal DNA testing is an emerging tool to detect colorectal cancer (CRC). Our aims were to estimate the clinical and economic consequences of fecal DNA testing vs. conventional CRC screening., Methods: Using a Markov model, we estimated CRC incidence, CRC mortality, and discounted cost/life-year gained for screening by fecal DNA testing (F-DNA), fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and/or sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy (COLO) in persons at average CRC risk from age 50 to 80 years., Results: Compared with no screening, F-DNA at a screening interval of 5 years decreased CRC incidence by 35% and CRC mortality by 54% and gained 4560 life-years per 100,000 persons at USD $47,700/life-year gained in the base case. However, F-DNA gained fewer life-years and was more costly than conventional screening. The average number of colonoscopies per person was 3.8 with COLO and 0.8 with F-DNA. In most 1-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation iterations, F-DNA remained reasonably cost-effective compared with no screening, but COLO and FOBT dominated F-DNA. Assuming fecal DNA testing sensitivities of 65% for CRC and 40% for large polyp, and 95% specificity, a screening interval of 2 years and a test cost of USD $195 would be required to make F-DNA comparable with COLO., Conclusions: Fecal DNA testing every 5 years appears effective and cost-effective compared with no screening, but inferior to other strategies such as FOBT and COLO. Fecal DNA testing could decrease the national CRC burden if it could improve adherence with screening, particularly where the capacity to perform screening colonoscopy is limited.

Streptococcus pneumoniae-associated infections are an important cause of hospitalization and mortality in high-risk and elderly patients. Even in the setting of appropriate therapy, the case fatality rate of invasive pneumococcal disease in the elderly may approach 40%. Since approximately 40,000 people die annually from pneumococcal-associated disease, it represents a substantial target for vaccine-preventable, bacterial fatalities. The 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine has proven consistently effective in preventing invasive pneumococcal disease. Despite its endorsement by numerous specialty societies, the pneumococcal vaccine is underutilized in the inpatient setting. In a recent report of quality indicators for Medicare beneficiaries, the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries in Louisiana admitted with pneumonia who were screened or received the pneumococcal vaccination prior to discharge was only 4%, the lowest percentage in the United States. The Louisiana State University-New Orleans Internal Medicine Department and its house staff embarked upon a retrospective study to determine its baseline pneumococcal vaccination or screening rates for all patients with pneumonia on its inpatient services at the The Medical Center of Louisiana in New Orleans from July 2000 through June 2001. From July 2001 through June 2002 an intensive educational intervention concentrating on the indications and benefits of pneumococcal vaccination was directed toward the Louisiana State University Internal Medicine house staff assigned to the inpatient service. Retrospective analysis for pneumococcal vaccine screening and administration of charts of all patients with pneumonia on the LSU Medicine service from July 2001 through June 2002 was performed in order to determine the effects of the intervention. Data from the pre-educational intervention period revealed a baseline pneumococcal vaccine screening or administration rate of 11% for all patients with pneumonia on the LSU Internal Medicine inpatient service. During the one-year intervention period, the pneumococcal vaccine screening or administration rate increased to 71%, a clinically and statistically significant increase (p-value < 0.0001). Data targeting patients 65 years of age and older revealed a baseline pneumococcal vaccine screening or administration rate of 10% for patients with pneumonia on the LSU Internal Medicine inpatient service which increased to 82% during the one year educational intervention (p-value < 0.0001). House officer scores (possible range 0-100) on a questionnaire assessing their understanding of the indications and benefits of pneumococcal vaccination were significantly higher after the educational intervention compared to before the intervention (means +/- standard deviations, 68 +/- 9 vs. 59 +/- 10, p < 0.0001). The findings from this study highlight the importance of education in increasing compliance with widely-accepted practice guidelines such as pneumococcal vaccine screening or administration in patients hospitalized with pneumonia.

Background: Aspirin may decrease colorectal cancer incidence, but its role as an adjunct to or substitute for screening has not been evaluated., Objective: To examine the potential cost-effectiveness of aspirin chemoprophylaxis in relation to screening., Design: Markov model., Data Sources: Literature on colorectal cancer epidemiology, screening, costs, and aspirin chemoprevention (1980-1999)., Target Population: General U.S. population., Time Horizon: 50 to 80 years of age., Perspective: Third-party payer., Intervention: Aspirin therapy in patients screened with sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and fecal occult blood testing every year (FS/FOBT) or colonoscopy every 10 years (COLO)., Outcome Measures: Discounted cost per life-year gained., Results of Base-Case Analysis: When a 30% reduction in colorectal cancer risk was assumed, aspirin increased costs and decreased life-years because of related complications as an adjunct to FS/FOBT and cost $149 161 per life-year gained as an adjunct to COLO. In patients already taking aspirin, screening with FS/FOBT or COLO cost less than $31 000 per life-year gained., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Cost-effectiveness estimates depended highly on the magnitude of colorectal cancer risk reduction with aspirin, aspirin-related complication rates, and the screening adherence rate in the population. However, when the model's inputs were varied over wide ranges, aspirin chemoprophylaxis remained generally non-cost-effective for patients who adhere to screening., Conclusions: In patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening, aspirin use should not be based on potential chemoprevention. Aspirin chemoprophylaxis alone cannot be considered a substitute for colorectal cancer screening. Public policy should focus on improving screening adherence, even in patients who are already taking aspirin.