Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 3-D Computerized Tomography Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy for Imaging Symptomatic Gastroenterology Patients
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
When symptomatic gastroenterology patients have an indication for colonic imaging, clinicians have a choice between optical colonoscopy (OC) and computerized tomography colonography with three-dimensional reconstruction (3-D CTC). 3-D CTC provides a minimally invasive and rapid evaluation of the entire colon, and it can be an efficient modality for diagnosing symptoms. It allows for a more targeted use of OC, which is associated with a higher risk of major adverse events and higher procedural costs. A case can be made for 3-D CTC as a primary test for colonic imaging followed if necessary by targeted therapeutic OC; however, the relative long-term costs and benefits of introducing 3-D CTC as a first-line investigation are unknown.
The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of 3-D CTC versus OC for colonic imaging of symptomatic gastroenterology patients in the UK NHS.
We used a Markov model to follow a cohort of 100,000 symptomatic gastroenterology patients, aged 50 years or older, and estimate the expected lifetime outcomes, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs (£, 2010–2011) associated with 3-D CTC and OC. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the base-case cost-effectiveness results to variation in input parameters and methodological assumptions.
3D-CTC provided a similar number of LYs (7.737 vs 7.739) and QALYs (7.013 vs 7.018) per individual compared with OC, and it was associated with substantially lower mean costs per patient (£467 vs £583), leading to a positive incremental net benefit. After accounting for the overall uncertainty, the probability of 3-D CTC being cost effective was around 60 %, at typical willingness-to-pay values of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY gained.
3-D CTC is a cost-saving and cost-effective option for colonic imaging of symptomatic gastroenterology patients compared with OC.
- Office of National Statistics. Cancer statistics: registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2009, England (series MB1, no. 40). Newport: Office for National Statistics, 2011 (online). http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/cancer-statistics-registrations-england-series-mb1-/no-40-2009/index.html. Accessed 10 Apr 2012.
- Cancer Research UK. Cancerstats mortality: UK 2010 (online). http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/bowel/mortality/. Accessed 10 Apr 2012.
- Trueman P, Lowson K, Chilcott J, al. E. Bowel cancer services: costs and benefits. Final report to the Department of Health. York Health Economics Consortium, 2007.
- NICE. Guidance on cancer services improving outcomes in colorectal cancers: manual update. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2004.
- Consolo P, Luigiano C, Strangio G, Scaffidi MG, Giacobbe G, Di Giuseppe G, et al. Efficacy, risk factors and complications of endoscopic polypectomy: ten year experience at a single center. World J Gastroenterol (WJG). 2008;14(15):2364–9. CrossRef
- Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, Jacobson JS, Grann VR, Neugut AI. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(3):230–6. CrossRef
- Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Shapiro JA, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(12):880–6. CrossRef
- Burling D, Halligan S, Slater A, Noakes MJ, Taylor SA. Potentially serious adverse events at CT colonography in symptomatic patients: national survey of the United Kingdom. Radiology. 2006;239(2):464–71. CrossRef
- Pickhardt PJ. Incidence of colonic perforation at CT colonography: review of existing data and implications for screening of asymptomatic adults. Radiology. 2006;239(2):313–6. CrossRef
- Bose M, Bell J, Jackson L, Casey P, Saunders J, Epstein O. Virtual vs. optical colonoscopy in symptomatic gastroenterology out-patients: the case for virtual imaging followed by targeted diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26(5):727–36. CrossRef
- Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, Palesch YY, Mauldin PD, Hoffman B, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1713–9. CrossRef
- Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, Schafer C, Horst D, Becker CR, et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut. 2009;58(2):241–8. CrossRef
- Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, Heiken JP, Dachman A, Kuo MD, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. New Eng J Med. 2008;359(12):1207–17. CrossRef
- Simons PC, Van Steenbergen LN, De Witte MT, Janssen-Heijnen ML. Miss rate of colorectal cancer at CT colonography in average-risk symptomatic patients. Eur Radiol (epub 20 Oct 2012).
- Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Int Med. 2005;142(8):635–50. CrossRef
- Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Laghi A, Kim DH, Zullo A. Should we refer diminutive polyps to post-CTC polypectomy? (letter). Gut. 2010;59(1):137. CrossRef
- Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, Dachman AH, Fenlon HM, Ferrucci JT, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005;236(1):3–9. CrossRef
- Pickhardt PJ, Hain KS, Kim DH, Hassan C. Low rates of cancer or high-grade dysplasia in colorectal polyps collected from computed tomography colonography screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8(7):610–5. CrossRef
- Rex DK. Colonoscopy: a review of its yield for cancers and adenomas by indication. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90(3):353–65.
- Gonvers JJ, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V, Burnand B, Vader JP, Froehlich F. A European view of diagnostic yield and appropriateness of colonoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54(75):729–35.
- Neugut AI, Garbowski GC, Waye JD, Forde KA, Treat MR, Tsai JL, et al. Diagnostic yield of colorectal neoplasia with colonoscopy for abdominal pain, change in bowel habits, and rectal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88(8):1179–83.
- Obusez EC, Lian L, Kariv R, Burke CA, Shen B. Diagnostic yield of colonoscopy for constipation as the sole indication. Colorect Dis. 2012;14(5):585–91. CrossRef
- Department of Health. Payment by results tariffs 2010–2011 (internet database). London: Department of Health; 2011.
- Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program: physician fee schedule update for calendar year 2011. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Fed Registry. 2011;76(228):9561–98.
- Lee D, Muston D, Sweet A, Cunningham C, Slater A, Lock K. Cost effectiveness of CT colonography for UK NHS colorectal cancer screening of asymptomatic adults aged 60–69 years. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(3):141–54. CrossRef
- Sweet A, Lee D, Gairy K, Phiri D, Reason T, Lock K. The impact of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening on the UK NHS: costs, healthcare resources and health outcomes. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(1):51–64. CrossRef
- Nhs BCSP. Guidelines for the use of imaging in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. 2nd ed. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2012.
- Wylie P, Burling D. CT colonography: what the gastroenterologist needs to know. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2011;2:96–104. CrossRef
- Almond LM, Bowley DM, Karandikar SS, Roy-Choudhury SH. Role of CT colonography in symptomatic assessment, surveillance and screening. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26(8):959–66. CrossRef
- NICE. Colorectal cancer: the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011.
- Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Eggington S, Patnick J, Sakai H, Karnon J. Option appraisal of population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in England. Gut. 2007;56(5):677–84. CrossRef
- Atkin WS, Saunders BP. Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut. 2002;51(Suppl. 5):V6–9. CrossRef
- Dukes C. The classification of cancer of the rectum. J Pathol Bacteriol. 1932;35(3):323–32. CrossRef
- Government Actuary’s Department. Interim life tables 2006–08 (internet database). http://www.gad.gov.uk/. Accessed 10 Feb 2012.
- Vijan S, Hwang I, Inadomi J, Wong RK, Choi JR, Napierkowski J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(2):380–90. CrossRef
- Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, Rothwell DM, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(1):96–102. CrossRef
- Tappenden P, Eggington S, Nixon R, Chilcott J, Sakai H, Karnon J. Colorectal cancer screening options appraisal: cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and resource impact of alternative screening options for colorectal cancer. Report to the English Bowel Cancer Screening Working Group. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research; 2004.
- Ries L, Kosary C, Hankey B, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2009. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2010.
- Chaparro M, Gisbert JP, Del Campo L, Cantero J, Mate J. Accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of polyps and colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Digestion. 2009;80(1):1–17. CrossRef
- Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Bartram CI, et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology. 2005;237(3):893–904. CrossRef
- Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection—systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2011;259(2):393–405. CrossRef
- Bressler B, Paszat LF, Vinden C, Li C, He J, Rabeneck L. Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(2):452–6. CrossRef
- Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Prorok PC. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer: reply. New Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):1065–6.
- Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Kim DH, Reichelderfer M, Gopal DV, Pfau PR. Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st year of coverage by third-party payers. Radiology. 2006;241(2):417–25. CrossRef
- Ness RM, Holmes AM, Klein R, Dittus R. Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(6):1650–7. CrossRef
- Fryback DG, Lawrence WF Jr. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Dec Making. 1997;17(3):276–84. CrossRef
- NICE. Methods for technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
- Dowie J. Why cost-effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):453–9. CrossRef
- Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
- Vanni T, Karnon J, Madan J, White RG, Edmunds WJ, Foss AM, et al. Calibrating models in economic evaluation: a seven-step approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(1):35–49. CrossRef
- Office of National Statistics. Mortality statistics: deaths registered in England and Wales by cause, age and sex 2010 (series DR). Office for National Statistics, 2011 (online). http://www.ons.gov.uk/. Accessed 10 Apr 2012.
- Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
- Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, Zullo A, Kim DH, Morini S. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer. 2007;109(11):2213–21. CrossRef
- Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Laghi A, Kim DH, Zullo A, Iafrate F, et al. Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(7):696–705. CrossRef
- McHugh M, Osei-Anto A, Klabunde CN, Galen BA. Adoption of CT colonography by US hospitals. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8(3):169–74. CrossRef
- Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. New Eng J Med. 2003;349(23):2191–200. CrossRef
- Halligan S, Lilford RJ, Wardle J, Morton D, Rogers P, Wooldrage K, et al. Design of a multicentre randomized trial to evaluate CT colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colonic cancer in older symptomatic patients: the SIGGAR study. Trials. 2007;8:32. CrossRef
- Brenner DJ. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology. 2004;231(2):440–5. CrossRef
- Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Hinshaw JL. CT colonography: performance and program outcome measures in an older screening population. Radiology. 2010;254(2):493–500. CrossRef
- DiSario JA, Foutch PG, Mai HD, Pardy K, Manne RK. Prevalence and malignant potential of colorectal polyps in asymptomatic, average-risk men. Am J Gastroenterol. 1991;86(8):941–5.
- Johnson DA, Gurney MS, Volpe RJ, Jones DM, VanNess MM, Chobanian SJ, et al. A prospective study of the prevalence of colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with an age-related risk. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85(8):969–74.
- Loeve F, Boer R, Zauber AG, Van Ballegooijen M, Van Oortmarssen GJ, Winawer SJ, et al. National Polyp Study data: evidence for regression of adenomas. Int J Cancer. 2004;111(4):633–9. CrossRef
- Hofstad B, Vatn M, Larsen S, Osnes M. Growth of colorectal polyps: recovery and evaluation of unresected polyps of less than 10 mm, 1 year after detection. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1994;29(7):640–5. CrossRef
- Hofstad B, Vatn MH, Andersen SN, Huitfeldt HS, Rognum T, Larsen S, et al. Growth of colorectal polyps: redetection and evaluation of unresected polyps for a period of three years. Gut. 1996;39(3):449–56. CrossRef
- Knoernschild HE. Growth rate and malignant potential of colonic polyps: early results. Surg Forum. 1963;14:137–8.
- Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ, Ho MN, Gottlieb L, Sternberg SS, et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. New Eng J Med. 1993;328(13):901–6. CrossRef
- Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, Clark DW, Helper DJ, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(1):24–8. CrossRef
- Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Choi JR, Schindler WR. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(5):352–9. CrossRef
- Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J, Bartelsman JF, Snel P, De Jager SW, et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(1):41–8. CrossRef
- Rex DK, Rahmani EY, Haseman JH, Lemmel GT, Kaster S, Buckley JS. Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(1):17–23. CrossRef
- Atkin WS, Cook CF, Cuzick J, Edwards R, Northover JM, Wardle J. Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9314):1291–300. CrossRef
- Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2010–2011 (internet database). London: Department of Health, 2011 (Accessed 10 Feb 2012).
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 3-D Computerized Tomography Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy for Imaging Symptomatic Gastroenterology Patients
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Volume 11, Issue 2 , pp 107-117
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer International Publishing
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15–17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK
- 2. Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
- 3. Centre for Gastrointestinal Radiology, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- 4. Centre for Gastroenterology, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK