Impact of Comorbidity on Colorectal Cancer Screening Cost-Effectiveness Study in Diabetic Populations
Although comorbidity has been shown to affect the benefits and risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, it has not been accounted for in prior cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC screening.
To evaluate the impact of diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, a highly prevalent comorbidity in U.S. adults aged 50 and older, on health and economic outcomes of CRC screening.
Cost-effectiveness analysis using an integrated modeling framework.
Derived from basic and epidemiologic studies, clinical trials, cancer registries, and a colonoscopy database.
U.S. 50-year-old population.
Costs are based on Medicare reimbursement rates.
Colonoscopy screening at ten-year intervals, beginning at age 50, and discontinued after age 50, 60, 70, 80 or death.
Health outcomes and cost effectiveness.
RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS
Diabetes diagnosis significantly affects cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. For the same CRC screening strategy, a person without diabetes at age 50 gained on average 0.07–0.13 life years more than a person diagnosed with diabetes at age 50 or younger. For a population of 1,000 patients diagnosed with diabetes at baseline, increasing stop age from 70 years to 80 years increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by 0.3, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $206,671/QALY. The corresponding figures for 1,000 patients without diabetes are 2.3 QALYs and $46,957/QALY.
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Cost-effectiveness results are sensitive to cost of colonoscopy and adherence to colonoscopy screening.
Results depend on accuracy of model assumptions.
Benefits of CRC screening differ substantially for patients with and without diabetes. Screening for CRC in patients diagnosed with diabetes at age 50 or younger is not cost-effective beyond age 70. Screening recommendations should be individualized based on the presence of comorbidities.
KEY WORDScolorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness analysis health care modeling comorbidity optimal screening cessation individualized guidelines
Conflict of Interest Declaration
The authors declare no conflict of interest. This study was carried out by Archimedes in collaboration with Drs. Smith and Walter. Dr. Walter is supported by a grant 1R01CA134425 from the National Cancer Institute.
- 1.Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer Statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin.Google Scholar
- 4.Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, Wooldrage K, Hart AR, Northover JM, et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet;375(9726):1624-33.Google Scholar
- 7.Calkins E, Boult C, Wagner E. New ways to care for older people. Building systems based on evidence. New York: Springer; 1999.Google Scholar
- 14.Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kahn R, Alperin P, Eddy D, Borch-Johnsen K, Buse J, Feigelman J, et al. Age at initiation and frequency of screening to detect type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet;375(9723):1365-74.Google Scholar
- 21.Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, www.cori.org. 2007 (Accessed December 2011)..
- 22.Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program Populations (1969-2006) (www.seer.cancer.gov/popdata) NCI, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released February 2009. (Accessed December 2011).
- 36.Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, Stillman JS, O'Brien MJ, Levin B, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(3):143–59. quiz 84-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339–41.Google Scholar
- 44.Force USPST. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):627–37.Google Scholar
- 58.Scheiden R, Sand J, Pandin M, Wagener Y, Capesius C. Colorectal high-grade adenomas: incidence, localization and adenoma-adenocarcinoma ratio in a retrospective and comparative population-based study of 225 consecutive cases between 1988 and 1996. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2000;15(1):29–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 59.Hermanek P KK. Illustrierte Synopsis kolorektaler Tumore. Pharmazeutische Verlagsanstalt, Munich. 1983.Google Scholar
- 61.Stein KB, Snyder CF, Barone BB, Yeh HC, Peairs KS, Derr RL, et al. Colorectal Cancer Outcomes, Recurrence, and Complications in Persons With and Without Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2009.Google Scholar