Background: In addition to detecting colorectal neoplasia, abdominal computed tomography (CT) with colonography technique (CTC) can also detect unsuspected extracolonic cancers and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this combined abdominal CT screening strategy are unknown. Methods: A computerized Markov model was constructed to simulate the occurrence of colorectal neoplasia, extracolonic malignant neoplasm, and AAA in a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 subjects from the United States who were 50 years of age. Simulated screening with CTC, using a 6-mm polyp size threshold for reporting, was compared with a competing model of optical colonoscopy (OC), both without and with abdominal ultrasonography for AAA detection (OC-US strategy). Results: In the simulated population, CTC was the dominant screening strategy, gaining an additional 1458 and 462 life-years compared with the OC and OC-US strategies and being less costly, with a savings of $266 and $449 per person, respectively. The additional gains for CTC were largely due to a decrease in AAA-related deaths, whereas the modeled benefit from extracolonic cancer downstaging was a relatively minor factor. At sensitivity analysis, OC-US became more cost-effective only when the CTC sensitivity for large polyps dropped to 61% or when broad variations of costs were simulated, such as an increase in CTC cost from $814 to $1300 or a decrease in OC cost from $1100 to $500. With the OC-US approach, suboptimal compliance had a strong negative influence on efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The estimated mortality from CT-induced cancer was less than estimated colonoscopy-related mortality (8 vs 22 deaths), both of which were minor compared with the positive benefit from screening. Conclusion: When detection of extracolonic findings such as AAA and extracolonic cancer are considered in addition to colorectal neoplasia in our model simulation, CT colonography is a dominant screening strategy (ie, more clinically effective and more cost-effective) over both colonoscopy and colonoscopy with 1-time ultrasonography. ©2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: Model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis / C., Hassan; P. J., Pickhardt; Laghi, Andrea; D. H., Kim; A., Zullo; F., Iafrate; L., Di Giulio; S., Morini. - In: ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE. - ISSN 0003-9926. - STAMPA. - 168:7(2008), pp. 696-705. [10.1001/archinte.168.7.696]

Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: Model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis

LAGHI, ANDREA;
2008

Abstract

Background: In addition to detecting colorectal neoplasia, abdominal computed tomography (CT) with colonography technique (CTC) can also detect unsuspected extracolonic cancers and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this combined abdominal CT screening strategy are unknown. Methods: A computerized Markov model was constructed to simulate the occurrence of colorectal neoplasia, extracolonic malignant neoplasm, and AAA in a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 subjects from the United States who were 50 years of age. Simulated screening with CTC, using a 6-mm polyp size threshold for reporting, was compared with a competing model of optical colonoscopy (OC), both without and with abdominal ultrasonography for AAA detection (OC-US strategy). Results: In the simulated population, CTC was the dominant screening strategy, gaining an additional 1458 and 462 life-years compared with the OC and OC-US strategies and being less costly, with a savings of $266 and $449 per person, respectively. The additional gains for CTC were largely due to a decrease in AAA-related deaths, whereas the modeled benefit from extracolonic cancer downstaging was a relatively minor factor. At sensitivity analysis, OC-US became more cost-effective only when the CTC sensitivity for large polyps dropped to 61% or when broad variations of costs were simulated, such as an increase in CTC cost from $814 to $1300 or a decrease in OC cost from $1100 to $500. With the OC-US approach, suboptimal compliance had a strong negative influence on efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The estimated mortality from CT-induced cancer was less than estimated colonoscopy-related mortality (8 vs 22 deaths), both of which were minor compared with the positive benefit from screening. Conclusion: When detection of extracolonic findings such as AAA and extracolonic cancer are considered in addition to colorectal neoplasia in our model simulation, CT colonography is a dominant screening strategy (ie, more clinically effective and more cost-effective) over both colonoscopy and colonoscopy with 1-time ultrasonography. ©2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
2008
abdominal neoplasms; aortic aneurysm: abdominal; colonography: computed tomographic; colorectal neoplasms; cost-benefit analysis; efficiency; markov chains; models: theoretical; monte carlo method; patient compliance; sensitivity and specificity
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: Model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis / C., Hassan; P. J., Pickhardt; Laghi, Andrea; D. H., Kim; A., Zullo; F., Iafrate; L., Di Giulio; S., Morini. - In: ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE. - ISSN 0003-9926. - STAMPA. - 168:7(2008), pp. 696-705. [10.1001/archinte.168.7.696]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/386730
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 40
  • Scopus 133
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 120
social impact