Yock Young Dan, Benjamin Y.S. Chuah, Dean C.S. Koh, Khay Guan Yeoh 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Microscopic Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta- analysis Eline J.C.A. Kamp, John S. Kane, Alexander C. Ford Clinical Gastroenterology.
Advertisements

MiraLAX Is Not as Effective as GoLytely in Bowel Cleansing Before Screening Colonoscopies Michael Hjelkrem, Joel Stengel, Mark Liu, David P. Jones, Stephen.
Risk of Neoplasia After Colectomy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Lauranne A.A.P. Derikx, Loes H.C.
Douglas K. Rex, Emely Eid  Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 
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.
Prevention, Early Detection, and Overdiagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Within 10 Years of Screening Colonoscopy in Germany  Hermann Brenner, Lutz Altenhofen,
Chronic Diarrhea Caused by Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma With Colorectal Involvement  Chencheng Xie, Khalil Aloreidi, Jorge.
Gauree Gupta, Ebbing Lautenbach, James D. Lewis 
Katsunori Matsueda, Tatsuya Toyokawa 
Morgagni's Hernia Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
A Shocking Cystory Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Rebekah S. Wieland, Richard S. Zubarik, Maryam J. Zenali 
Amit G. Singal, Jasmin A. Tiro, Samir Gupta 
Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia  Uri Ladabaum, Ajitha Mannalithara 
Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: A Meta-analysis of Population-Based Cohort Studies  Tine Jess, Christine Rungoe, Laurent.
Volume 155, Issue 4, Pages (October 2018)
Amnon Sonnenberg, MD, MSc, Brent Y. Lee, MD 
Cesare Hassan, Perry J. Pickhardt, Douglas K. Rex 
Trends in Hospitalization for Diverticulitis and Diverticular Bleeding in the United States From 2000 to 2010  Chelle L. Wheat, Lisa L. Strate  Clinical.
Granular Cell Tumor in Colonic Polyp Found on Screening Colonoscopy
Personalizing Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of Models to Predict Risk of Colorectal Neoplasia  Gene K. Ma, Uri Ladabaum  Clinical Gastroenterology.
Clinical Features, Treatment, and Survival of Patients With Colorectal Cancer With or Without Inflammatory Bowel Disease  Raja Affendi Raja Ali, Cara.
Eighty-Year-Old Patient With History of a Twelve Millimeter Adenomatous Polyp Resected at Age of Seventy-Five Years  David Lieberman  Clinical Gastroenterology.
Activity-Based Costing and Management in a Hospital-Based GI Unit
Predicted Increases in Incidence of Colorectal Cancer in Developed and Developing Regions, in Association With Ageing Populations  Kelvin K.F. Tsoi, Hoyee.
Risk of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Who Use Thiopurines Is Not Increased  Fiona D.M. van Schaik, Martijn G.H.
Stool DNA Analysis is Cost-Effective for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis  John B. Kisiel, Gauree G. Konijeti, Andrew.
Bisphosphonates Are Associated With Reduced Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis  Siddharth Singh, Abha Goyal Singh, Mohammad.
Michael Hjelkrem, Joel Stengel, Mark Liu, David P. Jones, Stephen A
Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar,
Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Measuring Fecal Calprotectin in Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Adults and Children  Zhuo Yang, Nick.
Cainan Foltz, Williamson Strum 
When Should Screening Stop for Elderly Individuals at Average and Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer?  Folasade P. May, Samir Gupta  Clinical Gastroenterology.
Millie D. Long, Hans H. Herfarth, Clare A. Pipkin, Carol Q
Haruhisa Iizuka, Satoru Kakizaki, Yasuhiro Onozato 
Joanna Gibson, Jill Lacy, Ellen Matloff, Marie Robert 
Metastatic Malignant Melanoma of the Gastrointestinal Tract
New Models of Gastroenterology Practice
Patient, Procedure, and Endoscopist Risk Factors for Perforation, Bleeding, and Splenic Injury After Colonoscopies  Moussa Laanani, Joël Coste, Pierre-Olivier.
Relationship Between Detection of Adenomas by Flexible Sigmoidoscopy and Interval Distal Colorectal Cancer  Shari S. Rogal, Paul F. Pinsky, Robert E.
Cesare Hassan, Emilio Di Giulio, Perry J
Coffee and Colorectal Cancer: Grounds for Prevention?
Swati G. Patel, Dennis J. Ahnen 
Health Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of a Hybrid Screening Strategy for Colorectal Cancer  Tuan Dinh, Uri Ladabaum, Peter Alperin, Cindy Caldwell, Robert.
Amnon Sonnenberg  Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 
Cholelithiasis in a Patient With History of Cholecystectomy
Allison E. Anderson, Kevin A. Henry, N. Jewel Samadder, Ray M
Rebecca M. Lovell, Alexander C. Ford 
Deborah A. Fisher, Joseph Galanko, Tara K. Dudley, Nicholas J. Shaheen 
Sahil Mittal, Yu–Li Lin, Alai Tan, Yong–Fang Kuo, Hashem B
Colorectal Cancer Screening: How to Stop a Moving Target
Effects of Different Coping Strategies on Physical and Mental Health of Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome  Lilian Dindo, PhD  Clinical Gastroenterology.
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.
Pauline Copin, Maxime Ronot, Valérie Vilgrain 
Endoscopic Screening for Gastric Cancer
Hepatic Cyst? Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Issue Highlights Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Cost Utility of Screening for Barrett’s Esophagus With Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy Versus Conventional Upper Endoscopy  Joel H. Rubenstein, John M. Inadomi,
Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy in Chronic Crohn's Colitis: Results of a Surveillance Program Spanning 25 Years  Sonia Friedman, Peter H. Rubin,
Volume 156, Issue 4, Pages (March 2019)
Patients Do Not Recall Important Details About Polyps, Required for Colorectal Cancer Prevention  Veena Kumaravel, Brandie Heald, Rocio Lopez, Henrietta.
Familial Colorectal Cancer, Beyond Lynch Syndrome
Issue Highlights Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Hairball in the Stomach: A Case of Gastric Trichobezoar
Volume 138, Issue 6, Pages (May 2010)
Erick Alayo, Bashar Attar, Benjamin Go 
Adverse Outcomes: Why Bad Things Happen to Good People
Many Patients Who Undergo Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Receive Surveillance Colonoscopies Earlier Than Recommended by Guidelines  Amanpal Singh, Yong–Fang.
Metastatic Malignant Melanoma of the Gastrointestinal Tract
Presentation transcript:

Screening Based on Risk for Colorectal Cancer Is the Most Cost-Effective Approach  Yock Young Dan, Benjamin Y.S. Chuah, Dean C.S. Koh, Khay Guan Yeoh  Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology  Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 266-271.e6 (March 2012) DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.011 Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Cost/effectiveness analysis of CRC with different strategies. Stool DNA and virtual colonoscopy are dominated (more expensive and less effective). iFOBT had the lowest cost/QALY compared with no screening. Colonoscopy every 10 years had the lowest ICER as evident in the lowest gradient referenced to sigmoid/iFOBT. Barium (Ba) enema, single colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years with and without annual iFOBT were all categorized under extended dominance of iFOBT and colonoscopy every 10 years. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2012 10, 266-271.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.011) Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 (A) Two-way sensitivity analysis of risk of CRC and cost of colonoscopy. Both factors had a major impact on cost effectiveness. When the cost of colonoscopy was less than US$300, colonoscopy was the most cost-effective strategy regardless of risks of CRC. When the cost of colonoscopy exceeded US$300, iFOBT was the most cost-effective strategy at low CRC incidence whereas sigmoidoscopy was more cost effective at higher CRC incidence. (B) Sensitivity analysis of adherence. Assuming secondary and tertiary adherence are the same, strategies that have short cyclic screening are affected more significantly by poor adherence. iFOBT becomes more cost effective than single sigmoidoscopy when adherence is better than 36% and more cost effective than colonoscopy every 10 years when adherence exceeds 50%. (C) Sensitivity analysis of screening age. iFOBT was the most cost-effective strategy for subjects younger than age 60. Because the risk of CRC increases after age 60, a colonoscopy every 10 years became more cost effective. The cost-effectiveness graph increases sharply at age 72 because the benefit of screening is offset by death from other causes. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2012 10, 266-271.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.011) Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Net health benefit of screening strategies. Single sigmoidoscopy or single colonoscopy derive the maximal health benefit at a low willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (<$50,000/QALY) and is appropriate for countries with limited spending power. At WTP greater than $50,000, colonoscopy every 10 years is the most effective and averts the most CRC deaths but comes with a price tag of $600 million and requires 1 million colonoscopies. Tailoring a combination of iFOBT and colonoscopy decreases the number of colonoscopies needed and the total cost while achieving an equivalent reduction of CRC deaths. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2012 10, 266-271.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.011) Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 1 Clinical and transition states in CRC screening. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2012 10, 266-271.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.011) Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 3 Estimated incidence of CRC based on the number of years after a negative colonoscopy. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2012 10, 266-271.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.011) Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 4 Validation of projected CRC and CRC deaths based on model compared to actual Singapore cancer and death registry. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2012 10, 266-271.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2011.11.011) Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions