Economic Evaluation of Cancer Screening - Case of Colorectal Cancer – Cost-Effectiveness analysis of stool DNA to Screen for Colorectal Cancer October.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
COURAGE Economic Results of the COURAGE Trial William S. Weintraub, MD Chief of Cardiology Christiana Care Health System Professor of Medicine, Thomas.
Advertisements

All Payer Claims Database APCD Databases created by state mandate, that includes data derived from medical, eligibility, provider, pharmacy and /or dental.
J Thorac Dis 2013;5(S5) Estimated 10 year survival 88%, regardless of treatment Survival rate 92% if surgical resection in 1 month.
Economic Evaluation of Health Promotion Activities Overview of the Issues Joseph Lipscomb, PhD Department of Health Policy and Management and Emory Prevention.
Screening for Colorectal Cancer Cancer Symposium: Measuring the Benefits of Screening and Treatment October 2007.
Colorectal Cancer Screening & Surveillance: Anything New? Timothy C. Hoops, M.D.
Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies: Examples from Different World Regions Jane J. Kim, Ph.D. Sue J. Goldie, M.D., M.P.H. Harvard.
Schneider Institute for Health Policy Heller Graduate School Brandeis University 1 by Donald S. Shepard, Ph.D. Schneider Institute for Health Policy Heller.
Colorectal Cancer Screening 101
Screening for colorectal cancers What ’ s new?. Screening Routine examination of asymptomatic population of a disease Routine examination of asymptomatic.
Colorectal Cancer Screening John Pelzel MD Sleepy Eye Medical Center.
D EPARTMENT of F AMILY M EDICINE Colon Cancer Screening in Iowa Barcey T. Levy, PhD, MD Professor, Family Medicine and Epidemiology University of Iowa.
Sharp L, Tilson L, Whyte S, Ó Céilleachair A
PROJECT Situation analysis and cost- effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer screening in Russia Coordinator of the project: N. Koroleva.
A Cervical Cancer Decision Model to Inform Recommendations About Preventive Services Perspective of the Decision Modeler Shalini Kulasingam, PhD Duke University.
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.
Modeled Estimates of the Effects of Screening: Results from the CISNET Breast Cancer Consortium International Breast Cancer Screening Network Biennial.
Estimating the Burden of Disease Examining the impact of changing risk factors on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality Karen M. Kuntz, ScD Cancer.
1 Colorectal Cancer # 2 Cancer Killer # 2 Cancer Killer SCREENING SAVES LIVES.
BACKGROUND Cost-effectiveness of Psychotherapy for Cluster C Personality Disorders and the Value of Information and Implementation Djøra I. Soeteman 1,2,
Public State Initiatives in Colorectal Screening: The Colorado Experience Tim Byers MD MPH University of Colorado School of Medicine
1 Colorectal Cancer # 2 Cancer Killer # 2 Cancer Killer SCREENING SAVES LIVES.
CMS as a Public Health Agency: Effective Health Care Research Barry M. Straube, M.D. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services January 11, 2006.
CISNET and BCSC: Working Together To Model The Population Impact Breast Cancer Screening A Celebration of the Work of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Access to Health Care: The Cancer Perspective Daniel E. Smith President, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) November 2007.
The effects of inadequate preparation quality for colonoscopy Eric Sherer and Michael Catlin August 20 th, 2010 HSR&D Work-in-Progress 1.
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.
Using Simulation and Decision Modeling to Inform Decision Making AHRQ Annual Meeting Sept. 8, 2008.
● The results of this study suggest that using the prognostic test to guide ACT decisions in NSCLC is cost-effective compared to a SoC approach according.
D EPARTMENT of F AMILY M EDICINE Colorectal Cancer Screening: Update on Guidelines and Projects Barcey T. Levy, PhD, MD Professor, Department of Family.
CT Screening for Lung Cancer vs. Smoking Cessation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Pamela M. McMahon, PhD; Chung Yin Kong, PhD; Bruce E. Johnson; Milton.
Date of download: 5/31/2016 From: Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 Years: A Comparative Modeling.
Date of download: 6/1/2016 From: Cost-Effectiveness of Novel Regimens for the Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(6): doi: /M
Date of download: 6/27/2016 From: Should Colorectal Cancer Screening Be Considered in Elderly Persons Without Previous Screening?: A Cost-Effectiveness.
Date of download: 7/1/2016 From: Evaluating Test Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task.
Date of download: 9/19/2016 From: Personalizing Age of Cancer Screening Cessation Based on Comorbid Conditions: Model Estimates of Harms and Benefits Ann.
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:
Cancer prevention and early detection
Cost-effectiveness Analysis for Cervical Cancer Screening Using HPV DNA Tests in Chile Franco Figueira S, BPharm student1; Cachoeira CV, MD, MBA1; Silva.
Rafael Meza Department of Epidemiology University of Michigan
Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines
A Quality improvement initiative
Colorectal Cancer Screening Physician Orientation
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
Simulation Models to Inform Health Policy: Colorectal Cancer Screening
Evaluation of a Spiritually-based Intervention to Increase Colorectal Cancer Knowledge and Screening Among Church-attending African Americans and Whites.
Pathways To Coverage Jim Almas, M.D. Coverage and Analysis Group (CAG)
Colorectal Natural History Model
Volume 154, Issue 3, Pages e18 (February 2018)
Volume 141, Issue 5, Pages e1 (November 2011)
Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia  Uri Ladabaum, Ajitha Mannalithara 
Long-term evaluation of benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia: a modelling study  Jie-Bin.
Volume 154, Issue 1, Pages e20 (January 2018)
Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus Reduces Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Incidence and Mortality in a Comparative Modeling Analysis  Sonja Kroep,
Cesare Hassan, Perry J. Pickhardt, Douglas K. Rex 
Yock Young Dan, Benjamin Y.S. Chuah, Dean C.S. Koh, Khay Guan Yeoh 
Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar,
Volume 149, Issue 4, Pages (October 2015)
Heiko Pohl, Douglas J. Robertson 
Megan Eguchi, MPh Sana karam, md, phd
Projected National Impact of Colorectal Cancer Screening on Clinical and Economic Outcomes and Health Services Demand  Uri Ladabaum, Kenneth Song  Gastroenterology 
Genomic Medicine in Community Health: Protecting Human Rights
Presentation transcript:

Economic Evaluation of Cancer Screening - Case of Colorectal Cancer – Cost-Effectiveness analysis of stool DNA to Screen for Colorectal Cancer October 19, 2010 Chapel Hill, NC MISCAN: Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Ann Zauber, Janneke Wilschut, Marjolein van Ballegooijen SimCRC: Karen Kuntz, Amy Knudsen

Acknowledgements  Models part of NCI’s CISNET program

 EXACT asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for national coverage determination on their stool DNA test  Two CISNET modeling groups were asked to: Research Question Determine reimbursement cost at which this stool DNA test could be a cost-effective alternative to current screening options

Comparative modeling approach  Used two independently developed models for colorectal cancer:  MISCAN  SimCRC  Comparative modeling:  adds credibility to the modeling results  serves as a sensitivity analysis on the underlying structural assumptions of the models

Modeling of natural history of CRC adenoma 6-9 mm adenoma >=10 mm ADENOMA Preclinical screen-detectable adenoma phase No lesion adenoma <=5 mm preclinical stage I preclinical stage II preclinical stage III preclinical stage IV Preclinical CANCER screen-detectable cancer phase clinical stage I clinical stage II clinical stage III clinical stage IV Clinical CANCER phase death colorectal cancer Datasources: Adenoma Autopsy studies Colonoscopy studies Preclinical Cancer Dwell time Clinical Cancer SEER Incidence Death US Mortality Screening

Modeling of a life-history Birth Death from other causes Life history without CRC Late adenoma Development of first adenoma Adenoma Preclinical cancer Development of second adenoma Late adenoma Adenoma Clinical cancer Death from CRC Birth Death from CRC Combined life history with CRC Adenoma Late Adenoma Preclinical cancer Clinical cancer

Modeling the effect of screening Birth Death from CRC Life history with CRC, but without screening Adenoma Late adenoma Preclinical cancer Clinical cancer Late adenoma Development of first adenoma Adenoma Preclinical cancer Development of second adenoma Late adenoma Adenoma Clinical cancer Death from CRC Screening Intervention Birth Screening effect Life history with CRC, and with screening Adenoma Late adenoma Death from other causes Adenoma, carcinoma free

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis  Estimate discounted (3%) life-years gained & lifetime costs for all strategies  Order strategies from least effective to most effective  Eliminate strategies that are more costly & less effective than another (dominated)  Eliminate strategies that are more costly & less effective than a combination of other strategies (weakly dominated)  Remaining strategies lie on efficient frontier, where choice of strategy depends on willingness to pay for a life- year gained

Efficient Frontier

What change in per-test cost would allow this strategy to reach the frontier?

Efficient Frontier (MISCAN) COL

Threshold Unit Costs below which stool DNA testing is on the efficient frontier

Conclusions  Stool DNA testing provides a benefit in terms of life-years gained compared with no screening  If stool DNA test performed every 3-5y, LYG comparable to that of annual Hemoccult II  Stool DNA is not an efficient screening strategy when cost is $350 per test  Threshold analyses indicate stool DNA testing every 3-5 years could be efficient if cost is $34-60 per test (depending upon interval and model)  Findings are consistent across two independent microsimulation models

Acknowledgements  We acknowledge:  Martin Brown, PhD and Robin Yabroff, PhD of NCI for their assistance with obtaining cancer treatment costs using SEER-Medicare data;  Joan Warren, PhD and Carrie Klabunde, PhD of NCI for sharing their preliminary analysis of SEER-Medicare data on colonoscopy-related complications;  John Allen, MD of Minnesota Gastroenterology and Joel Brill, MD of Predictive Health for their assistance in deriving coding for screening and complications;  William Larson, Marjorie Baldo, and Marilu Hue of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for providing CMS cost data;  Chuck Shih of the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality for interpreting the CMS cost data;  William Lawrence, MD and Kim Wittenberg, MA of AHRQ for contextual and administrative assistance, respectively.  and Eric (Rocky) Feuer, PhD of NCI for continued support of the work and infrastructure of the CISNET consortium.