Search

Background & Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective but underused. Blood-based biomarkers (liquid biopsy) could improve screening participation., Methods: Using our established Markov model, screening every 3 years with a blood-based test that meets minimum Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' thresholds (CMS min ) (CRC sensitivity 74%, specificity 90%) was compared with established alternatives. Test attributes were varied in sensitivity analyses., Results: CMS min reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% vs no screening. These reductions were less profound than the 68%-79% and 73%-81%, respectively, achieved with multi-target stool DNA (Cologuard; Exact Sciences) every 3 years, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or colonoscopy every 10 years. Assuming the same cost as multi-target stool DNA, CMS min cost $28,500/quality-adjusted life-year gained vs no screening, but FIT, colonoscopy, and multi-target stool DNA were less costly and more effective. CMS min would match FIT's clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold FIT's participation rate. Advanced precancerous lesion (APL) sensitivity was a key determinant of a test's effectiveness. A paradigm-changing blood-based test (sensitivity >90% for CRC and 80% for APL; 90% specificity; cost ≤$120-$140) would be cost-effective vs FIT at comparable participation., Conclusions: CMS min could contribute to CRC control by achieving screening in those who will not use established methods. Substituting blood-based testing for established effective CRC screening methods will require higher CRC and APL sensitivities that deliver programmatic benefits matching those of FIT. High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers. APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence at ages <50 years is increasing worldwide. Screening initiation was lowered to 45 years in the United States. The cost-effectiveness of initiating CRC screening at 45 years in Israel was assessed with the aim of informing national policy and addressing internationally relevant questions., Methods: A validated CRC screening model was calibrated to Israeli data and examined annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy every 10 years from 45 to 74 years (FIT45-74 or Colo45-74) versus from 50 to 74 years (FIT50-74 or Colo50-74). The addition of a fourth colonoscopy at 75 years was explored, subanalyses were performed by sex/ethnicity, and resource demands were estimated., Results: FIT50-74 and Colo50-74 reduced CRC incidence by 57% and 70% and mortality by 70% and 77%, respectively, versus no screening, with greater absolute impact in Jews/Other versus Arabs but comparable relative impact. FIT45-74 further reduced CRC incidence and mortality by an absolute 3% and 2%, respectively. With Colo45-74 versus Colo50-74, CRC cases and deaths increased slightly as three colonoscopies per lifetime shifted to 5 years earlier but mean quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYGs) per person increased. FIT45-74 and Colo45-74 cost 23,800-53,900 new Israeli shekels (NIS)/QALYG and 110,600-162,700 NIS/QALYG, with the lowest and highest values among Jewish/Other men and Arab women, respectively. A fourth lifetime colonoscopy cost 48,700 NIS/QALYG. Lowering FIT initiation to 45 years with modest participation required 19,300 additional colonoscopies in the first 3 years., Conclusions: Beginning CRC screening at 45 years in Israel is projected to yield modest clinical benefits at acceptable costs per QALYG. Despite different estimates by sex/ethnicity, a uniform national policy is favored. These findings can inform Israeli guidelines and serve as a case study internationally., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

The landmark Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) decision memo on blood-based biomarkers to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) sets thresholds of 74% or higher for sensitivity and 90% or higher for specificity for CRC. This approach does not consider detection of advanced precancerous lesions as true positives. We contrasted the impact of counting advanced precancerous lesions as true vs false positives and projected CRC outcomes under contrasting tests in a validated model. A test with the threshold performance set by CMS decreased CRC incidence by 30% and CRC mortality by 48% in individuals aged 45 years. If this test also detected advanced precancerous lesions with 30% sensitivity, CRC incidence decreased by 45% and mortality by 58%, but the CRC specificity of the test of only 88% would not satisfy the CMS threshold. CMS should reconsider its definition of threshold specificity for CRC screening biomarkers. Future coverage determinations on biomarkers to screen for cancer should consider detection of relevant precursor lesions and projected outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Risk stratification has been proposed as a strategy to improve participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence is lacking. We performed a randomized controlled trial of risk stratification using the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT) on screening intent and completion., Methods: A total of 230 primary care patients eligible for first-time CRC screening were randomized to risk assessment via CCRAT or education control. Follow-up of screening intent and completion was performed by record review and phone at 6 and 12 months. We analyzed change in intent after intervention, time to screening, overall screening completion rates, and screening completion by CCRAT risk score tertile., Results: Of the patients, 61.7% of patients were aged <60 years, 58.7% female, and 94.3% with college or higher education. Time to screening did not differ between arms (hazard ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.18], P = 0.24). At 12 months, screening completion was 38.6% with CCRAT vs 44.0% with education (odds ratio [OR] 0.80 [95% CI 0.47-1.37], P = 0.41). Changes in screening intent did not differ between the risk assessment and education arms (precontemplation to contemplation: OR 1.52 [95% CI 0.81-2.86], P = 0.19; contemplation to precontemplation: OR 1.93 [95% CI 0.45-8.34], P = 0.38). There were higher screening completion rates at 12 months in the top CCRAT risk tertile (52.6%) vs the bottom (32.4%) and middle (31.6%) tertiles (P = 0.10)., Discussion: CCRAT risk assessment did not increase screening participation or intent. Risk stratification might motivate persons classified as higher CRC risk to complete screening, but unintentionally discourage screening among persons not identified as higher risk., (Copyright © 2020 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

The American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference in December 2018, entitled, "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The goal of the conference, which attracted more than 60 experts in screening and related disciplines, including the authors, was to envision a future in which colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance are optimized, and to identify barriers to achieving that future. This White Paper originates from that meeting and delineates the priorities and steps needed to improve CRC outcomes, with the goal of minimizing CRC morbidity and mortality. A one-size-fits-all approach to CRC screening has not and is unlikely to result in increased screening uptake or desired outcomes owing to barriers stemming from behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic causes, especially when combined with inefficiencies in deployment of screening technologies. Overcoming these barriers will require the following: efficient utilization of multiple screening modalities to achieve increased uptake; continued development of noninvasive screening tests, with iterative reassessments of how best to integrate new technologies; and improved personal risk assessment to better risk-stratify patients for appropriate screening testing paradigms., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), which was instituted in 2012, may have affected readmission rates for non-target conditions, including colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to analyze the nationwide all-cause 30-day readmission rate following CRC surgery in a US nationwide database., Methods: We queried the 2010-2015 Nationwide Readmissions Database to estimate readmission rates. All results were weighted for national estimates., Results: Among 616,348 index cases, the overall 2010-2015 30-day readmission rate was 14.7% (95% confidence interval, 14.5%-14.9% [n = 90,555]), with a decreasing trend from 15.5% in 2010 and 2011 to 13.5% in 2015 (p-trend<0.001). Rectal resection, longer length of stay, non-invasive cancer, surgery at a metropolitan teaching hospital, non-routine discharge, elective admission, and higher Elixhauser comorbidity score were associated with subsequent readmission., Conclusions: In the US, 30-day readmission rates after CRC surgery showed a decreasing trend during 2010-2015, which could represent a spillover effect of the HRRP., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors disclose no conflicts., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits and costs of different interventions to inform decision makers. Alternatives are compared based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been performed. Although regional epidemiology of CRC, relevant screening strategies, regional health system, and applicable medical costs in local currencies differ by country and region, several overarching points emerge from literature on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis informs decisions in ongoing debates, including preferred age to begin average-risk CRC screening, and implementation of CRC screening tailored to predicted CRC risk., Competing Interests: Disclosure Advisory board (UniversalDx, Lean Medical), consultant (Covidien, Motus GI, Quorum, Clinical Genomics)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 & Aims: The American Cancer Society has recommended initiating colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at age 45 years instead of 50 years. We estimated the cost effectiveness and national effects of adopting this recommendation., Methods: We compared screening strategies and alternative resource allocations in a validated Markov model. We based national projections on screening participation rates by age and census data., Results: Screening colonoscopy initiation at age 45 years instead of 50 years in 1000 persons averted 4 CRCs and 2 CRC deaths, gained 14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost $33,900/QALY gained, and required 758 additional colonoscopies. These 758 colonoscopies could instead be used to screen 231 currently unscreened 55-year-old persons or 342 currently unscreened 65-year-old persons, through age 75 years. These alternatives averted 13-14 CRC cases and 6-7 CRC deaths and gained 27-28 discounted QALYs while saving $163,700-$445,800. Improving colonoscopy completion rates after abnormal results from a fecal immunochemical test yielded greater benefits and savings. Initiation of fecal immunochemical testing at age 45 years instead of 50 years cost $7700/QALY gained. Shifting current age-specific screening rates to 5 years earlier could avert 29,400 CRC cases and 11,100 CRC deaths over the next 5 years but would require 10.7 million additional colonoscopies and cost an incremental $10.4 billion. Improving screening rates to 80% in persons who are 50-75 years old would avert nearly 3-fold more CRC deaths at one third the incremental cost., Conclusions: In a Markov model analysis, we found that starting CRC screening at age 45 years is likely to be cost effective. However, greater benefit, at lower cost, could be achieved by increasing participation rates for unscreened older and higher-risk persons., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Most cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening assume Medicare payment rates and a lifetime horizon. Our aims were to examine the implications of differential payment levels and time horizons for commercial insurers vs. Medicare on the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening., Methods: We used our validated Markov cohort simulation of CRC screening in the average risk US population to examine CRC screening at ages 50-64 under commercial insurance, and at ages 65-80 under Medicare, using a health-care sector perspective. Model outcomes included discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs per person, and incremental cost/QALY gained., Results: Lifetime costs/person were 20-44% higher when assuming commercial payment rates rather than Medicare rates for people under 65. Most of the substantial clinical benefit of screening at ages 50-64 was realized at ages ≥65. For commercial payers with a time horizon of ages 50-64, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) were cost-effective (<$61,000/QALY gained), but colonoscopy was costly (>$185,000/QALY gained). Medicare experienced substantial clinical benefits and cost-savings from screening done at ages <65, even if screening was not continued. Among those previously screened, continuing FOBT and FIT under Medicare was cost-saving and continuing colonoscopy was highly cost-effective (<$30,000/QALY gained), and initiating any screening in those previously unscreened was highly effective and cost-saving., Conclusions: Modeling suggests that CRC screening is highly cost-effective over a lifetime even when considering higher payment rates by commercial payers vs. Medicare. Screening may appear relatively costly for commercial payers if only a time horizon of ages 50-64 is considered, but it is predicted to yield substantial clinical and economic benefits that accrue primarily at ages ≥65 under Medicare.

Importance: There have been substantial improvements in the early detection, treatment, and survival from cancer in the United States, but it is not clear to what extent patients with different types of health insurance have benefitted from these advancements., Objective: To examine trends in cancer survival by health insurance status from January 1997 to December 2014., Design, Setting, and Participants: California Cancer Registry (a statewide cancer surveillance system) data were used to estimate population-based survival by health insurance status in 3 calendar periods: January 1997 to December 2002, January 2003 to December 2008, and January 2009 to December 2014 with follow-up through 2014. Overall, 1 149 891 patients diagnosed with breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer, or melanoma in California were included in the study., Main Outcomes and Measures: Five-year all-cause and cancer-specific survival probabilities by insurance category and calendar period for each cancer site and sex; hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for each insurance category (none, Medicare, other public) compared with private insurance in each calendar period., Results: According to data from 1 149 891 patients diagnosed with breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer, or melanoma gathered from the California Cancer Registry, improvements in survival were almost exclusively limited to patients with private or Medicare insurance. For patients with other public or no insurance, survival was largely unchanged or declined. Relative to privately insured patients, cancer-specific mortality was higher in uninsured patients for all cancers except prostate, and disparities were largest from 2009 to 2014 for breast (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.45-2.03), lung (men: HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.31 and women: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.15-1.50), and colorectal cancer (women: HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.05-1.62). Mortality was also higher for patients with other public insurance for all cancers except lung, and disparities were largest from 2009 to 2014 for breast (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17-1.34), prostate (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31), and colorectal cancer (men: HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23 and women: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20)., Conclusions and Relevance: After accounting for patient and clinical characteristics, survival disparities for men with prostate cancer and women with lung or colorectal cancer increased significantly over time, reflecting a lack of improvement in survival for patients with other public or no insurance. To mitigate these growing disparities, all patients with cancer need access to health insurance that covers all the necessary elements of health care, from prevention and early detection to timely treatment according to clinical guidelines.

Purpose Racial/ethnic disparities in cancer survival in the United States are well documented, but the underlying causes are not well understood. We quantified the contribution of tumor, treatment, hospital, sociodemographic, and neighborhood factors to racial/ethnic survival disparities in California. Materials and Methods California Cancer Registry data were used to estimate population-based cancer-specific survival for patients diagnosed with breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer between 2000 and 2013 for each racial/ethnic group (non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and separately each for Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino) compared with non-Hispanic whites. The percentage contribution of factors to overall racial/ethnic survival disparities was estimated from a sequence of multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Results In baseline models, black patients had the lowest survival for all cancer sites, and Asian American and Pacific Islander patients had the highest, compared with whites. Mediation analyses suggested that stage at diagnosis had the greatest influence on overall racial/ethnic survival disparities accounting for 24% of disparities in breast cancer, 24% in prostate cancer, and 16% to 30% in colorectal cancer. Neighborhood socioeconomic status was an important factor in all cancers, but only for black and Hispanic patients. The influence of marital status on racial/ethnic disparities was stronger in men than in women. Adjustment for all covariables explained approximately half of the overall survival disparities in breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, but it explained only 15% to 40% of disparities in lung cancer. Conclusion Overall reductions in racial/ethnic survival disparities were driven largely by reductions for black compared with white patients. Stage at diagnosis had the largest effect on racial/ethnic survival disparities, but earlier detection would not entirely eliminate them. The influences of neighborhood socioeconomic status and marital status suggest that social determinants, support mechanisms, and access to health care are important contributing factors.

Background: Obesity and abdominal obesity are associated independently with morbidity and mortality. Physical activity attenuates these risks. We examined trends in obesity, abdominal obesity, physical activity, and caloric intake in US adults from 1988 to 2010., Methods: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data., Results: Average body mass index (BMI) increased by 0.37% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.44) per year in both women and men. Average waist circumference increased by 0.37% (95% CI, 0.30-0.43) and 0.27% (95% CI, 0.22-0.32) per year in women and men, respectively. The prevalence of obesity and abdominal obesity increased substantially, as did the prevalence of abdominal obesity among overweight adults. Younger women experienced the greatest increases. The proportion of adults who reported no leisure-time physical activity increased from 19.1% (95% CI, 17.3-21.0) to 51.7% (95% CI, 48.9-54.5) in women, and from 11.4% (95% CI, 10.0-12.8) to 43.5% (95% CI, 40.7-46.3) in men. Average daily caloric intake did not change significantly. BMI and waist circumference trends were associated with physical activity level but not caloric intake. The associated changes in adjusted BMIs were 8.3% (95% CI, 6.9-9.6) higher among women and 1.7% (95% CI, 0.68-2.8) higher among men with no leisure-time physical activity compared with those with an ideal level of leisure-time physical activity., Conclusions: Our analyses highlight important dimensions of the public health problem of obesity, including trends in younger women and in abdominal obesity, and lend support to the emphasis placed on physical activity by the Institute of Medicine., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy are proven to decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Sigmoidoscopy's benefit is limited to the distal colon. Observational data are conflicting regarding the degree to which colonoscopy affords protection against proximal CRC. Our aim was to explore the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative CRC screening strategies in light of the latest published data., Methods: We performed a contemporary cost-utility analysis using a Markov model validated against data from randomized controlled trials of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy. Persons at average CRC risk within the general US population were modeled. Screening strategies included those recommended by the United States (US) Preventive Services Task Force, including colonoscopy every 10 years (COLO), flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years (FS), annual fecal occult blood testing, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and the combination FS/FIT. The main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs., Results: In the base case, FIT dominated other strategies. The advantage of FIT over FS and COLO was contingent on rates of uptake and adherence that are well above current US rates. Compared with FIT, FS and COLO both cost <$50,000/QALY gained when FIT per-cycle adherence was <50%. COLO cost $56,800/QALY gained vs. FS in the base case. COLO cost <$100,000/QALY gained vs. FS when COLO yielded a relative risk of proximal CRC of <0.5 vs. no screening. In probabilistic analyses, COLO was cost-effective vs. FS at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained in 84% of iterations., Conclusions: Screening colonoscopy may be cost-effective compared with FIT and sigmoidoscopy, depending on the relative rates of screening uptake and adherence and the protective benefit of colonoscopy in the proximal colon. Colonoscopy's cost-effectiveness compared with sigmoidoscopy is contingent on the ability to deliver ~50% protection against CRC in the proximal colon.

Background & Aims: Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has become the most common CRC screening test in the United States, but the degree to which it protects against CRC of the proximal colon is unclear. We examined US trends in rates of resection for proximal vs distal CRC, which reflect CRC incidence, in the context of national CRC screening data, before and since Medicare's 2001 decision to pay for screening colonoscopy., Methods: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the largest US all-payer inpatient database, to estimate age-adjusted rates of resection for distal and proximal CRC, from 1993 to 2009, in adults. Temporal trends were analyzed using Joinpoint regression analysis., Results: The rate of resection for distal CRC decreased from 38.7 per 100,000 persons (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.4-42.0) to 23.2 per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 20.9-25.5) from 1993 to 2009, with annual decreases of 1.2% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.3%) from 1993 to 1999, followed by larger annual decreases of 3.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.3%) from 1999 to 2009 (P < .001). In contrast, the rate of resection for proximal CRC decreased from 30.0 per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 27.4-32.5) to 22.7 per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 20.6-24.7) from 1993 to 2009, but significant annual decreases of 3.1% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.0%) occurred only after 2002 (P < .001). Rates of resection for CRC decreased for adults ages 50 years and older, but increased for younger adults., Conclusions: These findings support the hypothesis that population-level decreases in rates of resection for distal CRC are associated with screening, in general, and that implementation of screening colonoscopy, specifically, might be an important factor that contributes to population-level decreases in rates of resection for proximal CRC., (Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: 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: The benefits of the Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat strategy are attributable largely to the cure of peptic ulcer disease while limiting the use of endoscopy., Aim: To reappraise the test-and-treat strategy and empirical proton pump inhibitor therapy for the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia in the light of the decreasing prevalence of H. pylori infection, peptic ulcer disease and peptic ulcer disease attributable to H. pylori., Methods: Using a decision analytical model, we estimated the cost per patient with uninvestigated dyspepsia managed with the test-and-treat strategy ($25/test; H.pylori treatment, $200) or proton pump inhibitor ($90/month). Endoscopy ($550) guided therapy for persistent or recurrent symptoms., Results: In the base case (25%H. pylori prevalence, 20% likelihood of peptic ulcer disease, 75% of ulcers due to H.pylori), the cost per patient is $545 with the test-and-treat strategy and $529 with proton pump inhibitor, and both strategies yield similar clinical outcomes at 1 year. H. pylori prevalence, the likelihood of peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers due to H.pylori are important determinants of the least costly strategy. At an H. pylori prevalence below 20%, proton pump inhibitor is consistently less costly than the test-and-treat strategy., Conclusions: As the H. pylori prevalence, the likelihood of peptic ulcer disease and the proportion of ulcers due to H. pylori decrease, empirical proton pump inhibitor becomes less costly than the test-and-treat strategy for the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia. Given the modest cost differential between the strategies, the test-and-treat strategy may be favoured if patients without peptic ulcer disease derive long-term benefit from H.pylori eradication.

Objective: Recent European trials demonstrate that testing and treatment for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is an effective alternative to prompt endoscopy in uninvestigated dyspepsia. The eventual endoscopy rate after H. pylori testing, which is a key determinant of cost-effectiveness, is unknown in the United States. Our aim was to determine the endoscopy rate after H. pylori testing in primary care practice in the United States and to compare outcomes among seropositive and seronegative patients., Methods: We performed a retrospective review with mean 13 month follow-up of primary care patients with dyspeptic symptoms tested with office-based H. pylori serology., Results: Of 268 adults tested (37+/-11 yr, 58% women), 57 (21%) were seropositive and 49/57 (86%) received eradication therapy. Endoscopy or contrast radiography was performed on 19% of seropositive and 19% of seronegative patients (p = 0.97). Annualized median disease-related expenditures were similar among seropositive and seronegative patients ($228 [$93-$654] vs $366 [$107-$1268], p = 0.19). However, aggregate expenditures were substantially lower than the cost of endoscopy alone ($816 [$296-$970]). On follow-up, seropositive and seronegative patients had similar numbers of primary care visits (2.9+/-3.2 vs 3.5+/-3.6, p = 0.23), prolonged antisecretory medication use (25 vs 33%, p = 0.27), and specialist referrals (23 vs 24%, p = 0.83)., Conclusion: In a United States center, 81% of primary care patients tested for H. pylori did not undergo endoscopy, and patients incurred significantly lower median expenditures after noninvasive H. pylori testing than the cost of endoscopy alone. Seropositive and seronegative patients experienced comparable outcomes after H. pylori testing.