Erhan Demirel

The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE Imaging may be promising for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, since it has test characteristics comparable with colonoscopy but is less invasive. We aimed to assess the potential of CT colonography (CTC) and MR colonography (MRC) in terms of (cost-effectiveness) using the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model. METHODS We compared several CTC and MRC strategies with 5- or 10-yearly screening intervals with no screening, 10-yearly colonoscopy screening and biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. We assumed trial-based participation rates in the base-case analyses and varied the rates in sensitivity analyses. Incremental lifetime costs and health effects were estimated from a healthcare perspective. RESULTS The health gain of CTC and MRC was similar and ranged from 0.031 to 0.048 life-year gained compared with no screening, for 2-5 screening rounds. Lifetime costs per person for MRC strategies were €60-110 higher than those for CTC strategies with an equal number of screening rounds. All imaging-based strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. FIT screening was the dominant screening strategy, leading to most LYG and highest cost-savings. Compared with three rounds of colonoscopy screening, CTC with five rounds was found to be cost-effective in an incremental analysis of imaging strategies. Assumptions on screening participation have a major influence on the ordering of strategies in terms of costs and effects. CONCLUSION CTC and MRC have potential for CRC screening, compared with no screening and compared with three rounds of 10-yearly colonoscopy screening. When taking FIT screening as the reference, imaging is not cost-effective. Participation is an important driver of effectiveness and cost estimates. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE This is the first study to assess the cost-effectiveness of MRC screening for CRC.

Long-Term Impact of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening Program on Cancer Incidence and Mortality—Model-Based Exploration of the Serrated Pathway

Background: We aimed to predict the long-term colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, and colonoscopy demand of the recently implemented Dutch colorectal cancer screening program. Methods: The Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal Cancer model was set up to simulate the Dutch screening program consisting of biennial fecal immunochemical testing combined with the new Dutch surveillance guidelines, between 2014 and 2044. The impact of screening and surveillance was evaluated under three sets of natural history assumptions differing in the contribution of the serrated pathway to colorectal cancer incidence. In sensitivity analyses, other assumptions concerning the serrated pathway were varied. Model-predicted outcomes were yearly colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, and colonoscopy demand per year. Results: Assuming an aging population, colorectal cancer incidence under 30 years of screening is predicted to decrease by 35% and 31% for a contribution of 0% and 30% of the serrated pathway to colorectal cancer, respectively. For colorectal cancer mortality, reductions are 47% and 45%. In 2044, 110,000 colonoscopies will be required annually assuming no contribution of the serrated pathway (27 per 1,000 individuals in the screening age range). Including the serrated pathway influences predicted screening effectiveness if serrated lesions are neither detected nor treated at colonoscopy, and/or if colorectal cancers arising from serrated lesions have substantially lower survival rates than those arising from adenomas. Conclusions: The Dutch screening program will markedly decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but considerable colonoscopy resources will be required. Impact: Predictions of long-term screening effectiveness are preferably based on both pathways to colorectal cancer to transparently describe the impact of uncertainties regarding the serrated pathway on long-term predictions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(1); 135–44. ©2015 AACR.