Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening with stool DNA testing in intermediate-incidence countries

Grace Hui-Min Wu, Yi-Ming Wang, Amy Ming-Fang Yen, Jau-Min Wong, Hsin-Chih Lai, Jane Warwick, Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen, Grace Hui-Min Wu, Yi-Ming Wang, Amy Ming-Fang Yen, Jau-Min Wong, Hsin-Chih Lai, Jane Warwick, Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of screening with stool DNA testing with that of screening with other tools (annual fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years) or not screening at all.

Methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the above screening strategies in the general population 50 to 75 years of age in Taiwan. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of various parameters on the cost-effectiveness of screening. A third-party payer perspective was adopted and the cost of dollar 13,000 per life-year saved (which is roughly the per capita GNP of Taiwan in 2003) was chosen as the ceiling ratio for assessing whether the program is cost-effective.

Results: Stool DNA testing every three, five, and ten years can reduce colorectal cancer mortality by 22%, 15%, and 9%, respectively. The associated incremental costs were dollar 9,794, dollar 9,335, and dollar 7,717, per life-year saved when compared with no screening. Stool DNA testing strategies were the least cost-effective with the cost per stool DNA test, referral rate with diagnostic colonoscopy, prevalence of large adenoma, and discount rate being the most influential parameters.

Conclusion: In countries with a low or intermediate incidence of colorectal cancer, stool DNA testing is less cost-effective than the other currently recommended strategies for population-based screening, particularly targeting at asymptomatic subjects.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Markov process for disease natural history and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC).* * The ovals represent Markov states; the solid arrows represent the direct transition between states, and the dotted arrows represent the transition toward competing cause of death. Abbreviations: Small adenoma, adenoma smaller than 1 cm in size; large adenoma, adenoma larger than 1 cm in size; early CRC, Dukes' stage A and B colorectal cancer, late CRC, Dukes' stage C and D colorectal cancer; OCD, other cause of death.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Structure of decision tree model.* * At the beginning of the first Markov cycle, all the probabilities of being in clinical early CRC, clinical late CRC, surveillance for small adenoma, surveillance for large adenoma, screen-detected early CRC, screen-detected late CRC, CRC death, complication death, and other death are zero. Ovals are the chance nodes governed by the probability related to compliance rate, sensitivity, specificity, and referral rate.: Markov cycle. Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; DNA3, stool DNA testing every 3 years; DNA5, stool DNA testing every 5 years; DNA10, stool DNA testing every 10 years; FOBT1, fecal occult blood testing every year; SIGM5, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years; COLO10, colonoscopy every 10 years; Small adenoma, adenoma smaller than 1 cm in size; large adenoma, adenoma larger than 1 cm in size; early CRC, Dukes' stage A and B colorectal cancer; late CRC, Dukes' stage C and D colorectal cancer.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of observed and predicted cumulative colorectal cancer incidence.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cost-effectiveness of CRC screening under different scenarios. Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; DNA3, DNA5, and DNA10, stool DNA testing every 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively; -W, under the worst case scenario (the same with the base-case estimates) in which the sensitivity of stool DNA testing for small adenoma, large adenoma, and colorectal cancer, and the specificity are 8%, 15%, 52%, and 94% based on Imperiale et al study [10]; -M, under the moderate case scenario in which the corresponding estimates are 8%, 18%, 85%, and 94% based on meta-analysis [10-13, 16]; -B, under the best case scenario in which the corresponding estimates are 8%, 82%, 91%, and 93% based on Ahlquist et al study [10]; FOBT1, fecal occult blood testing every year; SIGM5, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years; COLO10, colonoscopy every 10 years.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Sensitivity analysis regarding compliance to screening tool (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0). Abbreviations: DNA3, stool DNA testing every 3 years; DNA5, stool DNA testing every 5 years; DNA10, stool DNA testing every 10 years; FOBT1, fecal occult blood testing every year; SIGM5, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years; COLO10, colonoscopy every 10 years.

References

    1. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, Snover DC, Bradley GM, Schuman LM, Ederer F. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1365–1371. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199305133281901.
    1. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, Moss SM, Amar SS, Balfour TW, James PD, Mangham CM. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472–1477. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03386-7.
    1. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:1467–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03430-7.
    1. Faivre J, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, Tazi MA, Lamour J, Gerard D, Dassonville F, Bonithon-Kopp C. Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:1674–80. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.02.018.
    1. Rudy DR, Zdon MJ. Update on colorectal cancer. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61:1759–1770.
    1. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CPJ, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:653–657.
    1. Müller AD, Sonnenberg A. Protection by endoscopy against death from colorectal cancer. A case-control study among veterans. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1741–1748. doi: 10.1001/archinte.155.16.1741.
    1. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J, Ganiats T, Levin T, Woolf S, Johnson D, Kirk L, Litin S, Simmang C, Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale – Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:544–560. doi: 10.1053/gast.2003.50044.
    1. American Cancer Society American Cancer Society guidelines on screening and surveillance for the early detection of adenomatous polyps and colorectal cancer – update 2001. CA: A Cancer J for Clinicians. 2001;51:44–54.
    1. Ahlquist DA, Skoletsky JE, Boynton KA, Harrington JJ, Mahoney DW, Pierceall WE, Thibodeau SN, Shuber AP. Colorectal cancer screening by detection of altered human DNA in stool: feasibility of a multitarget assay panel. Gastroenterology. 2000;119:1219–1227. doi: 10.1053/gast.2000.19580.
    1. Tagore KS, Lawson MJ, Yucaitis JA, Gage R, Orr T, Shuber AP, Ross ME. Sensitivity and specificity of a stool DNA multitarget assay panel for the detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2003;3:47–53.
    1. Loktionov A, O'Neill IK, Silvester KR, Cummings JH, Middleton SJ, Miller R. Quantitation of DNA from exfoliated colonocytes isolated from human stool surface as a novel noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4:337–342.
    1. Koshiji M, Yonekura Y, Saito T, Yoshioka K. Microsatellite analysis of fecal DNA for colorectal cancer detection. J Surg Oncol. 2002;80:34–40. doi: 10.1002/jso.10096.
    1. Dong SM, Traverso G, Johnson C, Geng L, Favis R, Boynton K, Hibi K, Goodman SN, D'Allessio M, Paty P, Hamilton SR, Sidransky D, Barany F, Levin B, Shuber A, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B, Jen J. Detecting colorectal cancer in stool with the use of multiple genetic targets. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:858–865. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.11.858.
    1. Traverso G, Shuber A, Levin B, Johnson C, Olsson L, Schoetz DJ, Jr, Hamilton SR, Boynton K, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Detection of APC mutations in fecal DNA from patients with colorectal tumors. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:311–320. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012294.
    1. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Turnbull BA, Ross ME. Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal-cancer screening in an average-risk population. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2704–2714. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa033403.
    1. Cancer registry annual report Republic of China. Taipei: Department of Health, Republic of China; 2003.
    1. Cox DR, Miller HD. The theory of stochastic processes. Methuen and Co Ltd; 1965.
    1. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Day NE. Estimation of mean sojourn time in breast cancer screening using a Markov chain model of both entry and exit from the preclinical detectable phase. Stat Med. 1995;14:1531–1543.
    1. Chen THH, Kuo HS, Yen MF, Lai MS, Tabar L, Duffy SW. Estimation of sojourn time in chronic disease screening without data on interval cases. Biometrics. 2000;56:167–172. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00167.x.
    1. Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, Libbe SD, Ilstrup DM, MacCarty RL. Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology. 1987;93:1009–13.
    1. Chen TH, Yen MF, Lai MS, Koong SL, Wang CY, Wong JM, Prevost TC, Duffy SW. Evaluation of a selective screening for colorectal carcinoma: the Taiwan Multicenter Cancer Screening (TAMCAS) project. Cancer. 1999;86:1116–1128. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19991001)86:7<1116::AID-CNCR4>;2-D.
    1. O'Connell JB, Maggard MA, Ko CY. Colon cancer survival rates with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer six edition staging. J Nalt Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1420–5.
    1. 2002 Health and Vital Statistics. Taipei: Department of Health, Republic of China; 2003.
    1. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD, Woolf SH, Glick SN, Ganiats TG, Bond JH, Rosen L, Zapka JG, Olsen SJ, Giardiello FM, Sisk JE, Van Antwerp R, Brown-Davis C, Marciniak DA, Mayer RJ. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:594–642. doi: 10.1053/gast.1997.v112.agast970594.
    1. Ahlquist DA, Wieand HS, Moertel CG, McGill DB, Loprinzi CL, O'Connell MJ, Mailliard JA, Gerstner JB, Pandya K, Ellefson RD. Accuracy of fecal occult blood screening for colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 1993;269:1262–1267. doi: 10.1001/jama.269.10.1262.
    1. Ahlquist DA. Fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: can we afford to do this? Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 1997;26:41–55. doi: 10.1016/S0889-8553(05)70282-X.
    1. Launoy G, Smith TS, Duffy SW, Bouvier V. Colorectal cancer mass-screening: estimation of faecal occult blood test sensitivity, taking into account cancer mean sojourn time. Int J Cancer. 1997;73:220–4. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19971009)73:2<220::AID-IJC10>;2-J.
    1. Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J, Kronborg L. Analysis of screening data: colorectal cancer. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26:1172–81. doi: 10.1093/ije/26.6.1172.
    1. Moss SM, Hardcastle JD, Coleman DA, Robinson MHE, Rodrigues VC. Interval cancers in a randomized controlled trail of screening for colorectal cancer using a faecal occult blood test. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:386–90. doi: 10.1093/ije/28.3.386.
    1. Jouve JL, Remontet L, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, Benhamiche AM, Faivre J, Esteve J. Estimation of screening test (Hemoccult) sensitivity in colorectal cancer mass screening. Brit J Cancer. 2001;84:1477–81. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1752.
    1. Foutch PG, Mai H, Pardy K, DiSavio JA, Manne RK, Kerr D. Flexible sigmoidoscopy may be ineffective for secondary prevention of colorectal cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk men. Dig Dis Sci. 1991;86:946–951.
    1. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, Clark DW, Helper DJ, Lehman GA, Mark DG. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:24–28. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(97)70214-2.
    1. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS. Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:125–127.
    1. Rex DK. Colonoscopy: a review of its yield for cancers and adenomas by indication. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:353–365.
    1. Castiglione G, Ciatto S, Mazzotta A, Grazzini G. Sensitivity of screening sigmoidoscopy for proximal colorectal tumors. Lancet. 1995;345:726–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90899-4.
    1. Zarchy TM, Erchoff D. Do characteristics of adenomas on flexible sigmoidoscopy predict advanced lesions on baseline colonoscopy? Gastroenterology. 1994;106:1501–4.
    1. Achkar E, Carey W. Small polyps found during fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy in asymptomatic patients. Ann Intern Med. 1988;109:880–883.
    1. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:96–104.
    1. Kirschner CG, Davis SJ, Duffy C, Evans D, Hayden D, Jackson JA, Jacobs SJ, Jacobson CA, Kopacz J, Kotowicz GM, O'Heron MR, O'Hara KE, Reyes D. Current Procedural Terminology: CPT. Chicago: American Medical Assoc; 1999.
    1. Blom J, Liden A, Jeppsson B, Holmberg L, Pahlman L. Compliance and findings in a Swedish population screened for colorectal cancer with sigmoidoscopy. EJSO. 2002;28:827–31. doi: 10.1053/ejso.2002.1282.
    1. Pariente A, Milan C, Jafon J, Faivre Colonoscopic screening in first-degree relatives of patients with 'sporadic' colorectal cancer: a case-control study. Gastroenterology. 1998;115:7–12. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(98)70358-0.
    1. World Health Organization Immunization, vaccines and biologicals. The history of vaccination Accessed March 1, 2006.
    1. Song K, Fendrick AM, Ladabaum U. Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:1270–1279. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.02.016.
    1. Leshono M, Halpern Z, Arber N. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in the average risk population. Health Care Manag Scien. 2003;6:165–74. doi: 10.1023/A:1024488007043.
    1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108.
    1. Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2003;133:573–584.
    1. Vijan S, Hwang EW, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance. Am J Med. 2001;111:593–601. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00977-9.
    1. Vernon SW. Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1406–22. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.19.1406.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다