Colorectal Natural History Model

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Organized colorectal cancer screening program with FOBT: participation and diagnostic yield deteriorate with time Results – yield Aim To assess the short.
Advertisements

†Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department.
Spotlight on Colorectal Cancer Screening 1 1. Home Screening for Colon Cancer
Screening for Colorectal Cancer Cancer Symposium: Measuring the Benefits of Screening and Treatment October 2007.
Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening NEJM April 3, 2014 Vol 3 Imperiale, T.F. et al Presented by Melissa Spera, MD.
Canadian Cancer Risk Management Model: A new health policy tool useful in policy decisions related to lung cancer WK Evans, M Wolfson, WM Flanagan, J Oderkirk,
Colorectal cancer: How do we approach health disparities? Marta L. Davila, MD, FASGE University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
Colorectal Cancer Screening John Pelzel MD Sleepy Eye Medical Center.
Early Detection of breast cancer Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP Associate Director, Research, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada.
Integrated Cancer Screening Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Sharp L, Tilson L, Whyte S, Ó Céilleachair A
Bowel Screening in Scotland – Current Challenges and Possible Solutions Prof. Bob Steele Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee.
Turning Data into Action for Colorectal Cancer November 17, 2014 Jessica Shaffer, Director, Maine CDC Colorectal Cancer Control Program
Stage-specific survival of screen-detected versus clinically diagnosed colorectal cancer - evidence from the FOBT screening trials- Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar.
Decision Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests by Age to Begin, Age to End, and Screening Intervals: Report to the United States Preventive Services.
Our Vision – Healthy Kansans Living in Safe and Sustainable Environments.
Measuring disease and death frequency
INCIDENCE AND SURVIVAL TRENDS OF COLORECTAL CANCER FROM 2002 TO 2011 BE Ansa; E Alema-Mensah; MD Claridy; JQ Sheats; B Fontenot, and SA Smith Georgia Regents.
Colorectal cancer screening with the addition of flexible sigmoidoscopy to guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing: a population-based controlled trial.
 Subhendu De, Wonsuk Yoo Institute of Public and Preventative Health (IPPH), Georgia Regents University On Summer Public Health Scholars Program (SPHSP)
Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis N287E Spring 2006 Joanne Spetz 31 May 2006.
LSU Journal Club Should Colorectal Cancer Screening be Considered in Elderly Persons without Previous Screening? Claude Pirtle, PGY-I October 16th, 2014.
Modeling Efforts to Inform Countries’ Screening Decisions Ann Graham Zauber, Iris Vogelaar, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Deb Schrag, Rob Boer, Dik Habbema,
Colorectal Cancer Screening Colorectal Cancer Screening VT SGNA Conference VT SGNA Conference October 24, 2015 October 24, 2015 Lynn Butterly, MD Lynn.
Factors Predicting Stage of Adoption for Fecal Occult Blood Testing and Colonoscopy among Non-Adherent African Americans Hsiao-Lan Wang, PhD, RN, CMSRN,
BC Cancer Agency CARE & RESEARCH Breast Cancer Mortality After Screening Mammography in British Columbia Women Andrew J. Coldman, Ph.D. Norm Phillips,
Colorectal Cancer Screening Implementation of a public health programme An Expert Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening Cancer Society of Finland, Finnish.
Screening – a discussion in clinical preventive medicine Galit M Sacajiu MD MPH.
CT Screening for Lung Cancer vs. Smoking Cessation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Pamela M. McMahon, PhD; Chung Yin Kong, PhD; Bruce E. Johnson; Milton.
Cost-effectiveness of initiating and monitoring HAART based on WHO versus US DHHS guidelines in the developing world Peter Mazonson, MD, MBA Arthi Vijayaraghavan,
Date of download: 6/27/2016 From: Should Colorectal Cancer Screening Be Considered in Elderly Persons Without Previous Screening?: A Cost-Effectiveness.
Colonoscopic Polypectomy and Long-Term Prevention of Colorectal- Cancer Deaths N ENG J MED ;8 : Ann G. Zauber, Ph.D, Sidney J. Winawer,
Cancer prevention and early detection
The University of Sheffield Extrapolation methods:
Benjamin Kearns, The University of Sheffield
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم.
Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines
The Burden of Colorectal Cancer in Arkansas
THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN HAVING A LONG-TERM CONDITION AND UPTAKE OF POPULATION-BASED SCREENING FOR COLORECTAL CANCER Benjamin Kearns, The University of.
More Ontarians need to be screened for colorectal cancer (Sept. 2012)
Increasing Access to Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening in Rural East Texas where there is a High rate of Adenomatous Polyps Detected Carlton Allen, MS,
Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis  Kenneth Song, A.Mark Fendrick, Uri Ladabaum  Gastroenterology 
Background & Objectives
Evidence of a Program's Effectiveness in Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Federally Qualified Health Centers Robert L. Stephens, PhD, MPH1;
Jason Lacombe1, Saima Memon1, Cindy Gauvreau1,
COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING
March 31, 2016 Cindy Gauvreau, Saima Memon, Jason Lacombe
From: Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 YearsA Comparative Modeling Study of Risk Ann Intern.
Increasing Access to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural East Texas
PHQ2 Screening Negative PHQ2 Screening Positive
Module 4: Colorectal Cancer
Volume 147, Issue 5, Pages e1 (November 2014)
BACKGROUND RESULTS METHODS
Kathleen England Neville Calleja 20th October 2017
Feeling Rushed? Does Late Start Time Predict Poor Quality Colonoscopy?
INCIDENCE.
Essential Concepts in the Screening and Detection of Colorectal Cancer
Volume 154, Issue 3, Pages e18 (February 2018)
Volume 147, Issue 5, Pages e1 (November 2014)
Ruggli M.1), Stebler D.1), Besancon L.1), Vaucher F.1)
Reporting in CRC screening
AAMC CCN Colorectal Cancer Screening Integrated Care Pathway
Cesare Hassan, Perry J. Pickhardt, Douglas K. Rex 
See ColonCancerCheck at
Comparing the health and economic impacts of cervical cancer screening strategies using the Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM)  C. Popadiuk, A.J. Coldman,
Citation: Cancer Care Ontario
Projected National Impact of Colorectal Cancer Screening on Clinical and Economic Outcomes and Health Services Demand  Uri Ladabaum, Kenneth Song  Gastroenterology 
ESTIMATING THE EFFICIENCY OF THREE NATIONAL CANCER SCREENING PROGRAMMES USING THE POPULATION-BASED CANCER REGISTRY DATA IN SLOVENIA Vesna ZADNIK MD,
Colorectal cancer survival disparities in California
Cases of and deaths from cervical cancer, with associated incidence and mortality (rates per women), among Canadian women (2002–2006) by age group.
Presentation transcript:

Colorectal Natural History Model Comparing the health and economic impacts of two screening strategies for colorectal cancer in Canada using the Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM) Saima Memon1, Anthony B Miller2, William M Flanagan3, Claude Nadeau3, Craig Earle4,Natalie Fitzgerald1, Andy J Coldman5 1Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, ON, CA; 2Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON, CA; 3Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON, CA; 4 Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, CA, 5BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, CA Objective: To compare the health and economic impacts of biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at the 100 ng/ml cut point and biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using the Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM) 2.1 Results: Methodology: The CRMM is a Monte-Carlo microsimulation model that simulates the natural history of CRC from onset within the colon or rectum, and progression to mortality through different stages of cancer. CRMM performs simulations at an individual level and incorporates demographic data, cancer risk factors and registry data, diagnostic and treatment algorithms and health utilities. The natural history model has been informed by literature and vetted by expert panels. Eligibility criteria included average-risk males and females aged 50-74 with a 60% participation rate recruited from 2014 onwards. A ten-year phase-in period was assumed for the cohort in 2014 and there was no phase-in for cohorts entering in 2015 onward. By 2050, biennial gFOBT and FIT demonstrate a reduction in the incidence of CRC of up to 2,500 and 7,500 cases respectively compared to “No Screening”. By 2050, biennial gFOBT and FIT demonstrate a reduction in the incidence rate of CRC by 7 and 18 per 100,000 respectively compared to “No Screening” Colorectal Natural History Model Death Normal Neoplastic polyps (≤5 mm) Neoplastic polyps (6-9 mm) Neoplastic polyps (≥10 mm) Preclinical CRC Stage 1 (TMN) Stage 2 (TMN) Stage 3 (TMN) Stage 4 (TMN) Clinical CRC Cure Non-resectable distant or local recurrence Compared to “No Screening”, biennial gFOBT and FIT demonstrate a reduction in the number of CRC deaths by 2,800 and 4,800 deaths respectively By 2050, biennial FIT screening results in income and tax gains of approximately $920M compared to biennial gFOBT screening. Biennial FIT also results in net cost savings of approximately $110M as the cost of treatment is lower compared to biennial gFOBT. Limitations: Historical ad-hoc or programmatic screening nor use of colonoscopy in high risk and average risk patients were considered in the calibration of incidence to Canadian Cancer Registry Data. Conclusion: CRMM indicates that a biennial FIT screening program would demonstrate a greater reduction in the incidence and deaths due to CRC, as well as superior cost-effectiveness profile than biennial gFOBT in the Canadian population aged 50-74. Death from causes other than CRC is possible at any time. Risk is thought to vary according to age, sex, location within the colon (6 locations) as well as an index of individual risk. Progressive polyps include in situ (stage 0) CRC Resectable recurrences are taken into account at the previous state (clinical CRC stages 1 to 3). This analysis is based on the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s Cancer Risk Management Model 2.1. (CRMM). The CRMM has been made possible through a financial contribution from Health Canada, through the Partnership. The assumptions and calculations underlying the simulation results were prepared by the authors and the responsibility for the use and interpretation of these data is entirely that of the authors. FURTHER INFORMATION: www.cancerview.ca/cancerriskmanagement E-mail: riskmgmt@cancerview.ca Compared to “No Screening”, biennial FIT demonstrates a superior incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) than biennial gFOBT.