Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia  Uri Ladabaum, Ajitha Mannalithara 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis  Kenneth Song, A.Mark Fendrick, Uri Ladabaum  Gastroenterology 
Advertisements

Volume 147, Issue 5, Pages e1 (November 2014)
Carol Durno, Aaron Pollett, Steven Gallinger  Gastroenterology 
Fresh vs Frozen Samples and Ambient Temperature Have Little Effect on Detection of Colorectal Cancer or Adenomas by a Fecal Immunochemical Test in a Colorectal.
Volume 154, Issue 3, Pages e18 (February 2018)
Christoph Lübbert, Babett Holler  Gastroenterology 
Cost-Effectiveness of Access Expansion to Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus Infection Through Primary Care Providers  Thilo Rattay, Ian P. Dumont, Hauke.
Volume 147, Issue 5, Pages e1 (November 2014)
Diana G. Redwood, PhD, Elvin D. Asay, MS, Ian D. Blake, MS, Pamela E
Volume 141, Issue 5, Pages e1 (November 2011)
Low Rates of Gastrointestinal and Non-Gastrointestinal Complications for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopies in a Population-Based Study  Louise Wang,
Nadir Arber, Bernard Levin  Gastroenterology 
Katsunori Matsueda, Tatsuya Toyokawa 
Outcomes Among Living Liver Donors
“Dwarfing” White Strands on Screening Colonoscopy!
Ira J. Fox, Stephen C. Strom  Gastroenterology 
Volume 152, Issue 6, Pages (May 2017)
Volume 152, Issue 8, Pages e3 (June 2017)
Proximal and Distal Colorectal Cancer Resection Rates in the United States Since Widespread Screening by Colonoscopy  Parvathi A. Myer, Ajitha Mannalithara,
Volume 144, Issue 1, Pages e6 (January 2013)
Success as a PhD in Gastroenterology
Volume 154, Issue 1, Pages e20 (January 2018)
Unusual Case of an Upset Stomach
Volume 155, Issue 4, Pages (October 2018)
Volume 149, Issue 6, Pages e1 (November 2015)
Volume 153, Issue 3, Pages e16-e17 (September 2017)
Volume 150, Issue 4, Pages (April 2016)
Volume 154, Issue 4, Pages e7 (March 2018)
Volume 141, Issue 1, Pages e23-e26 (July 2011)
Cesare Hassan, Perry J. Pickhardt, Douglas K. Rex 
Personalizing Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of Models to Predict Risk of Colorectal Neoplasia  Gene K. Ma, Uri Ladabaum  Clinical Gastroenterology.
Sibu Varghese, Pierre Lao–Sirieix, Rebecca C. Fitzgerald 
Eighty-Year-Old Patient With History of a Twelve Millimeter Adenomatous Polyp Resected at Age of Seventy-Five Years  David Lieberman  Clinical Gastroenterology.
Yock Young Dan, Benjamin Y.S. Chuah, Dean C.S. Koh, Khay Guan Yeoh 
Stool DNA Analysis is Cost-Effective for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis  John B. Kisiel, Gauree G. Konijeti, Andrew.
Volume 137, Issue 1, Pages (July 2009)
Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar,
Carol Durno, Aaron Pollett, Steven Gallinger  Gastroenterology 
When Should Screening Stop for Elderly Individuals at Average and Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer?  Folasade P. May, Samir Gupta  Clinical Gastroenterology.
Laura Rotundo, Sushil Ahlawat  Gastroenterology 
Volume 142, Issue 7, Pages e2 (June 2012)
Volume 155, Issue 5, Pages e5 (November 2018)
Amir Shlomai, Ana Tobar, Ofer Benjaminov  Gastroenterology 
Coffee and Colorectal Cancer: Grounds for Prevention?
Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: Challenges in Identifying, Counseling, and Managing High-Risk Patients  Elena M. Stoffel, Anu Chittenden 
Volume 150, Issue 5, Pages (May 2016)
Hashem El–Serag, Anna S.F. Lok, David L. Thomas  Gastroenterology 
Health Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of a Hybrid Screening Strategy for Colorectal Cancer  Tuan Dinh, Uri Ladabaum, Peter Alperin, Cindy Caldwell, Robert.
Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, David Lieberman  Gastroenterology 
Caitlin C. Murphy, Kristin Wallace, Robert S. Sandler, John A. Baron 
Colorectal Cancer Screening: How to Stop a Moving Target
Cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with hepatitis C virus–related cirrhosis  Derek Patel, Norah A. Terrault, Francis.
Heiko Pohl, Douglas J. Robertson 
Gender as a Risk Factor for Advanced Neoplasia and Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis  Stephen P. Nguyen, Stephen Bent, Yea-Hung.
Volume 156, Issue 4, Pages (March 2019)
Daniel Mønsted Shabanzadeh, Lars Tue Sørensen, Torben Jørgensen 
Michelle Maria Pietzak  Gastroenterology 
Familial Colorectal Cancer, Beyond Lynch Syndrome
Volume 145, Issue 5, Pages e3 (November 2013)
Volume 139, Issue 6, Pages e1 (December 2010)
Cancer Costs Projected to Reach at Least $158 Billion in 2020
Volume 138, Issue 6, Pages (May 2010)
Projected National Impact of Colorectal Cancer Screening on Clinical and Economic Outcomes and Health Services Demand  Uri Ladabaum, Kenneth Song  Gastroenterology 
Novel Endoscopic Approaches in Detecting Colorectal Neoplasia: Macroscopes, Microscopes, and Metal Detectors  Anna M. Buchner, Michael B. Wallace  Gastroenterology 
Electronic Clinical Challenges and Images in GI
Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy: when, at what cost, and with what national impact?  Uri Ladabaum, Kenneth Song, A.Mark Fendrick 
Racial and Ethnic Variations in the Effects of Family History of Colorectal Cancer on Screening Compliance  Molly Perencevich, Rohit P. Ojha, Ewout W.
A Female Patient With Persistent Epigastric Pain for 1 Week
Use of Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors Is Associated With Lower Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Men With Benign Colorectal Neoplasms  Wuqing Huang, Jan Sundquist,
A Rare Tumor of the Liver With a Sudden Presentation
Presentation transcript:

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia  Uri Ladabaum, Ajitha Mannalithara  Gastroenterology  Volume 151, Issue 3, Pages 427-439.e6 (September 2016) DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.003 Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Effectiveness (discounted quality-adjusted life years per person) and cost (discounted dollars per person) for screening strategies. FIT with 100% consistent screening participation and without additional patient support costs was cost-saving compared with no screening. MT-sDNA achieved effectiveness similar to the other strategies given the same levels of patient participation, but it was more costly. Participation rates of 50% consistent screening and 27% intermittent screening are representative of successful organized screening programs, and the results for FIT with these participation rates include patient support costs of $153 per testing cycle. Gastroenterology 2016 151, 427-439.e6DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.003) Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 1 Schematic of the natural history module in the decision analytic model. The principal health states in the model are normal, small adenomatous polyp, large adenomatous polyp, localized colorectal cancer (CRC-L), regional colorectal cancer (CRC-R), disseminated colorectal cancer (CRC-D), alive after treatment for localized colorectal cancer (s/p CRC-L), alive after treatment for regional colorectal cancer (s/p CRC-R), and dead. Without screening, colorectal cancer is diagnosed and treated (Rx) only after symptoms (Sx) develop. Gastroenterology 2016 151, 427-439.e6DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.003) Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 2 Effectiveness (discounted QALYs/person) and cost (discounted dollars/person) for screening with MT-sDNA at progressively higher frequencies. Each arrow points to a line segment whose slope is the incremental cost per QALY gained of the shorter vs the longer screening interval that are represented by the 2 points joined by the line segment. Gastroenterology 2016 151, 427-439.e6DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.003) Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 3 Effectiveness (discounted QALYs/person) and cost (discounted dollars/person) for screening with MT-sDNA at progressively higher frequencies (sensitivity analysis with Medicare costs assumed for all ages). Each arrow points to a line segment whose slope is the incremental cost per QALY gained of the shorter vs the longer screening interval that are represented by the 2 points joined by the line segment. Gastroenterology 2016 151, 427-439.e6DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.003) Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 4 Effectiveness (discounted QALYs/person) and cost (discounted dollars/person) for screening strategies. Gastroenterology 2016 151, 427-439.e6DOI: (10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.003) Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions