Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of a urine metabolomics test vs. alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Despite the success of provincial screening programs, colorectal cancer (CRC) is still the third most common cancer in Canada and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Fecal-based tests, such as fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), form the foundation of the provincial CRC screening programs in Canada. However, those tests have low sensitivity for CRC precursors, adenomatous polyps and have low adherence. This study evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new urine metabolomic-based test (UMT) that detects adenomatous polyps and CRC.

Methods

A Markov model was designed using data from the literature and provincial healthcare databases for Canadian at average risk for CRC; calibration was performed against statistics data. Screening strategies included the following: FOBT every year, FIT every year, colonoscopy every 10 years, and UMT every year. The costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each strategy were estimated and compared.

Results

Compared with no screening, a UMT strategy reduced CRC mortality by 49.9% and gained 0.15 life years per person at $42,325/life year gained in the base case analysis. FOBT reduced CRC mortality by 14.9% and gained 0.04 life years per person at $25,011/life year gained. FIT reduced CRC mortality by 35.8% and gained 0.11 life years per person at $25,500/life year while colonoscopy reduced CRC mortality by 24.7% and gained 0.08 life years per person at $50,875/life year.

Conclusions

A UMT strategy might be a cost-effective strategy when used in programmatic CRC screening programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F (2017) Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut 66(4):683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ó Céilleachair AJ, Hanly P, Skally M, O’Neill C, Fitzpatrick P, Kapur K et al (2013) Cost comparisons and methodological heterogeneity in cost-of-illness studies. Med Care 51(4):339–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sanford SD, Zhao F, Salsman JM, Chang VT, Wagner LI, Fisch MJ (2014) Symptom burden among young adults with breast or colorectal cancer. Cancer 120(15):2255–2263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stewart SL, Wike JM, Kato I, Lewis DR, Michaud F (2006) A population-based study of colorectal cancer histology in the United States, 1998–2001. Cancer 107(S5):1128–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rashtak S, Rego R, Sweetser SR, Sinicrope FA (2017) Sessile serrated polyps and colon cancer prevention. Cancer Prev Res 10(5):270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68(1):7–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, Eheman C, Zauber AG, Anderson RN, Jemal A, Schymura MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Seeff LC, van Ballegooijen M, Goede SL, Ries LA (2010) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116(3):544–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Hankey BF et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366(8):687–696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Leddin DJ, Enns R, Hilsden R, Plourde V, Rabeneck L, Sadowski DC, Signh H (2010) Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position statement on screening individuals at average risk for developing colorectal cancer: 2010. Can J Gastroenterol 24(12):705–714

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Zubero MB, Arana-Arri E, Pijoan JI, Portillo I, Idigoras I, Lopez-Urrutia A et al (2014) Population-based colorectal cancer screening: comparison of two fecal occult blood test. Front Pharmacol 4:175

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Barzi A, Lenz HJ, Quinn DI, Sadeghi S (2017) Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for colorectal cancer. Cancer 123(9):1516–1527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Levin TR, Lavin P, Lidgard GP, Ahlquist DA, Berger BM (2014) Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 370(14):1287–1297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Roon AH, Wilschut JA, Hol L, van Ballegooijen M, Reijerink JC, ‘t Mannetje H et al (2011) Diagnostic yield improves with collection of 2 samples in fecal immunochemical test screening without affecting attendance. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(4):333–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, Cubiella J, Salas D, Lanas A, Andreu M, Carballo F, Morillas JD, Hernández C, Jover R, Montalvo I, Arenas J, Laredo E, Hernández V, Iglesias F, Cid E, Zubizarreta R, Sala T, Ponce M, Andrés M, Teruel G, Peris A, Roncales MP, Polo-Tomás M, Bessa X, Ferrer-Armengou O, Grau J, Serradesanferm A, Ono A, Cruzado J, Pérez-Riquelme F, Alonso-Abreu I, de la Vega-Prieto M, Reyes-Melian JM, Cacho G, Díaz-Tasende J, Herreros-de-Tejada A, Poves C, Santander C, González-Navarro A, COLONPREV Study Investigators (2012) Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 366(8):697–706

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van Roon AH, Goede SL, van Ballegooijen M, van Vuuren AJ, Looman CW, Biermann K, Reijerink JC, Mannetje H', van der Togt A, Habbema JD, van Leerdam M, Kuipers EJ (2013) Random comparison of repeated faecal immunochemical testing at different intervals for population-based colorectal cancer screening. Gut 62(3):409–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Singh H, Bernstein CN, Samadder JN, Ahmed R (2015) Screening rates for colorectal cancer in Canada: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ open 3(2):E149–E157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Singal AG, Corley DA, Kamineni A, Garcia M, Zheng Y, Doria-Rose PV, Quinn VP, Jensen CD, Chubak J, Tiro J, Doubeni CA, Ghai NR, Skinner CS, Wernli K, Halm EA (2018) Patterns and predictors of repeat fecal immunochemical and occult blood test screening in four large health care systems in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 113(5):746–754

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Major D, Bryant H, Delaney M, Fekete S, Gentile L, Harrison M, Mai V, Nicholson E, Taylor Y (2013) Colorectal cancer screening in Canada: results from the first round of screening for five provincial programs. Curr Oncol 20(5):252–257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Solbak NM, Xu JY, Vena JE, Al Rajabi A, Vaseghi S, Whelan HK et al (2018) Patterns and predictors of adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations in Alberta’s Tomorrow Project participants stratified by risk. BMC Public Health 18(1):177

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Church J (2013) Complications of colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin N Am 42(3):639–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang H, Tso V, Wong C, Sadowski D, Fedorak RN (2014) Development and validation of a highly sensitive urine-based test to identify patients with colonic adenomatous polyps. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 5(3):e54-e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Deng L, Chang D, Foshaug RR, Eisner R, Tso VK, Wishart DS, et al. (2017) Development and validation of a high-throughput mass spectrometry based urine metabolomic test for the detection of colonic adenomatous polyps. Metabolites 7(3)

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Deng L, Fang H, Tso VK, Sun Y, Foshaug RR, Krahn SC, Zhang F, Yan Y, Xu H, Chang D, Zhang Y, Fedorak RN (2017) Clinical validation of a novel urine-based metabolomic test for the detection of colonic polyps on Chinese population. Int J Color Dis 32(5):741–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Deng L, Ismond KP, Liu Z, Constable J., Wang H, Kingham PT, Chang D, Fedorak RN (2018) Urinary metabolomics to identify a unique biomarker panel for detecting colorectal cancer: a multicentre study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev

  25. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J (2002) Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 137(2):96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM (2001) Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 135(9):769–781

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Song K, Fendrick AM, Ladabaum U (2004) Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis. Gastroenterology 126(5):1270–1279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Telford JJ, Levy AR, Sambrook JC, Zou D, Enns RA (2010) The cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer. CMAJ 182(12):1307–1313

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ladabaum U, Song K (2005) Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand. Gastroenterology 129(4):1151–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sharaf RN, Ladabaum U (2013) Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies. Am J Gastroenterol 108(1):120–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ladabaum U, Allen J, Wandell M, Ramsey S (2013) Colorectal cancer screening with blood-based biomarkers: cost-effectiveness of methylated septin 9 DNA versus current strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 22(9):1567–1576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ladabaum U, Mannalithara A (2016) Comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a multitarget stool DNA test to screen for colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 151(3):427–39 e6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ouakrim DA, Boussioutas A, Lockett T, Hopper JL, Jenkins MA. (2014) Cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia. BMC Cancer 14(1)

  34. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, Naber SK, Doria-Rose VP, Pabiniak C et al (2016) Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama 315(23):2595–2609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Brenner H, Kretschmann J, Stock C, Hoffmeister M (2016) Expected long-term impact of screening endoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence: a modelling study. Oncotarget 7(30):48168–48179

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Prakash MK, Lang B, Heinrich H, Valli PV, Bauerfeind P, Sonnenberg A et al (2017) CMOST: an open-source framework for the microsimulation of colorectal cancer screening strategies. BMC Med inform Decis Making 17(1):80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen C, Stock C, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H (2018) Public health impact of colonoscopy use on colorectal cancer mortality in Germany and the United States. Gastrointest Endosc 87(1):213–21.e2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, Ahnen DJ, Meester RGS, Barzi A et al (2017) Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67(3):177–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. (2016) Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. Can Med Assoc J 188(5):340–8

  40. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T et al (2017) Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 112:1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tinmouth J, Vella ET, Baxter NN, Dubé C et al (2016) Colorectal cancer screening in average risk populations: evidence summary. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016:18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Oboler SK, Prochazka AV, Gonzales R, Xu S, Anderson RJ (2002) Public expectations and attitudes for annual physical examinations and testing. Ann Intern Med 136(9):652–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Anabtawi A, Mathew LM (2013) Improving compliance with screening of diabetic patients for microalbuminuria in primary care practice. ISRN Endocrinol 2013:893913

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. (2017) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. CADTH, Ottawa

  45. (2017) Surveillance & Reporting: The 2017 report on Cancer Statistics in Alberta. Edmonton

  46. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC (2014) Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 371(9):796–797

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, Snover DC, Bradley GM, Schuman LM, Ederer F (1993) Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 328(19):1365–1371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP, Weiss NS (1992) A case–control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 326(10):653–657

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Jorgensen OD (2002) A randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer using faecal occult blood testing: results after 13 years and seven biennial screening rounds. Gut 50(1):29–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Oct 22. GlobeNewswire http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/10/22/1624637/0/en/Alberta-to-begin-assessing-a-new-colorectal-cancer-screening-strategy-using-Metabolomic-Technologies-PolypDx.html. Accessed 22 Oct 2018

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Richard N. Fedorak, Carole Chambers, and Grace Wong (Pharmacy Cancer Services, Alberta Health Services) for their contribution to this manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by research grants from the Centre of Excellence for Gastrointestinal Inflammation and Immunity Research (CEGIIR), University of Alberta, Canada and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA (grant number 1UG3EB024965-01).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Scott Barichello and Lu Deng contributed equally to the work and are listed in alphabetical order by last name.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Scott Barichello, Kathleen P. Ismond, Dustin E. Loomes, Haili Wang, David Chang & Lawrence W. Svenson

  2. Metabolomic Technologies Inc., Suite 132, 9650 20 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6R 3T2, Canada

    Lu Deng, Kathleen P. Ismond, Haili Wang & David Chang

  3. Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Erin M. Kirwin & Lawrence W. Svenson

  4. Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Lawrence W. Svenson

  5. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Lawrence W. Svenson & Nguyen Xuan Thanh

Authors
  1. Scott Barichello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lu Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen P. Ismond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dustin E. Loomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erin M. Kirwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Haili Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lawrence W. Svenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nguyen Xuan Thanh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SB, LD, and DEL were responsible for the study conceptualization and design; SB, LD, KPI, DEL, EMK, HW, and LSW acquired and analyzed the data; statistical analyses of economic data were done by EMK and LSW; TXN and LD built the model and conducted formal analysis. All authors contributed to data interpretation and validation at each project stage. SB and LD led the preparation of the manuscript and all authors participated in its critical review and revision for important intellectual content. All authors approved the manuscript version for publishing and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work presented therein. Lastly, DC, LSW, and TXN acquired resources and provided supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lu Deng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

HW is cofounder and shareholder in Metabolomics Technologies Inc., while LD, KPI, and DC are employees of Metabolomics Technologies Inc.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 150 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barichello, S., Deng, L., Ismond, K.P. et al. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of a urine metabolomics test vs. alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies. Int J Colorectal Dis 34, 1953–1962 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03419-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03419-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation