Cost effectiveness of CT colonography for UK NHS colorectal cancer screening of asymptomatic adults aged 60–69 years

  • David Lee
  • Dominic Muston
  • Alison Sweet
  • Chris Cunningham
  • Andrew Slater
  • Kevin Lock
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Screening of populations at risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) allows the detection and successful treatment of tumours and their precursor polyps. The current UK CRC screening programme is faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), despite evidence from modelling studies to suggest that more cost-effective technologies exist.

Objective

To assess the cost effectiveness of CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening from the perspective of the UK NHS.

Methods

A state-transition Markov model was constructed to estimate lifetime costs and health outcomes of a cohort of individuals screened at age 60–69 years using four different CRC screening technologies: FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, optical colonoscopy and CTC.

Results

CTC screening offered every 10 years was cost saving compared with the current UK programme of biennial FOBT screening. This strategy also yielded greater health benefits (QALYs and life-years) than biennial FOBT screening. The model fit observed CRC epidemiology data well and was robust to changes in underlying parameter values. CTC remained cost effective under a range of assumptions in the univariate sensitivity analysis. However, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CTC dominated FOBT in only 5.9% of simulations and was cost effective at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained in 48% of simulations.

Conclusions

CTC has the potential to provide a cost-effective option for CRC screening in the UK NHS and may be cost saving compared with the current programme of biennial FOBT. Further analysis is required to assess the impact of introducing CTC to the UK CRC screening programme on the NHS budget and capacity.

Supplementary material

40258_2012_80301411_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (113 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 115 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    Office of National Statistics. Cancer statistics: registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2005, England [series MB1, no. 36]. Newport: Office for National Statistics, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/down loads/theme_health/MB1_36/MB1_No36_2005.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of National Statistics. Mortality statistics: cause [series DH2, no. 32]. Newport: Office for National Statistics, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Dh2_32/DH2_No32_2005.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trueman P, Lowson K, Bending M, et al. Bowel cancer services: costs and benefits. York: York Health Economics Consortium, 2007Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jackman RJ, Mayo CW. The adenoma-carcinoma sequence in cancer of the colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1951; 93(3): 327–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC. The evolution ofcancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 1975; 36(6): 2251–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329(27): 1977–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancers: a manual update. London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burling D, Halligan S, Slater A, et al. Potentially serious adverse events at CT colonography in symptomatic patients: national survey of the United Kingdom. Radiology 2006; 239(2): 464–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pickhardt PJ. Incidence of colonic perforation at CT colon-ography: review of existing data and implications for screening ofasymptomatic adults. Radiology 2006; 239(2): 313–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 2002; 12(6): 1410–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(23): 2191–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, et al. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 2006; 239(1): 149–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Eggington S, et al. Option appraisal of population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in England. Gut 2007; 56(5): 677–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tappenden P, Eggington S, Nixon R, et al. 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: University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research, 2004 SepGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996; 348(9040): 1472–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996; 348(9040): 1467–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faivre J, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, et al. Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology 2004; 126(7): 1674–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weller D, Moss S, Butler P, et al. English pilot of bowel cancer screening: an evaluation ofthe second round. 2006 Feb [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/pilot-2nd-round-evaluation.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vijan S, Hwang I, Inadomi J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102(2): 380–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer 2007; 109(11): 2213–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ladabaum U, Song K, Fendrick AM. Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy: when, at what cost, and with what national impact? Clin Gastroenterol Hepa-tol 2004; 2(7): 554–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hassan C, Zullo A, Laghi A, et al. Colon cancer prevention in Italy: cost-effectiveness analysis with CT colonography and endoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2007; 39(3): 242–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Laghi A, et al. Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, ex-tracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168(7): 696–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williams AR, Balasooriya BA, Day DW. Polyps and cancer of the large bowel: a necropsy study in Liverpool. Gut 1982; 23(10): 835–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ness RM, Holmes AM, Klein R, et al. Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94(6): 1650–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Torgerson D, Raftery J. Economics notes: measuring outcomes in economic evaluations. BMJ 1999; 318(7195): 1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bressler B, Paszat L, Vinden C, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2004; 127(2): 452–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 2008; 359(12): 1207–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2007. Kent: Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2007Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sosna J, Blachar A, Amitai M, et al. Colonic perforation at CT colonography: assessment of risk in a multicenter large cohort. Radiology 2006; 239(2): 457–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, et al. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(3): 230–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    UK NHS Department of Health. Payment by results (PbR) in 2007–08 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_062914 [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]
  34. 34.
    Audit study of patients with colorectal cancer undertaken in the Wessex region 1991–1995. Bristol: South West Cancer Intelligence Service, 2005 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith JJ, Cornish J, Tekkis PP, et al. The national bowel cancer audit project 2007. Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nbocap.org.uk/resources/reports/report2007.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Atkin WS, Saunders BP. Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 2002; 51Suppl. 5: V6–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chaparro M, Gisbert JP, Del CL, et al. Accuracy of computed tomographic colonography for the detection of polyps and colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Digestion 2009; 80(1): 1–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosman AS, Korsten MA. Meta-analysis comparing CT colonography, air contrast barium enema, and colon-oscopy. Am J Med 2007; 120(3): 203–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Developing costing tools: methods guide. London: NICE, 2008Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    UK NHS. NHS reference costs 2006–2007. London: NHS, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_082571 [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004; 291(14): 1713–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2004; 127(5): 1300–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miao YM, Amin Z, Healy J, et al. A prospective single centre study comparing computed tomography pneumo-colon against colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Gut 2000; 47(6): 832–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, 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. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58(3): 130–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xiong T, Richardson M, Woodroffe R, et al. Incidental lesions found on CT colonography: their nature and frequency. Br J Radiol 2005; 78(925): 2 -9Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA. Mass screening with CT colo-nography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 2005; 129(1): 328–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Halloran SP, Snowball J. How good is the guaiac-based faecal occult blood test for population screening of colo-rectal cancer? [abstract OP170]. Gastro 2009; 2009 Nov 21–25; LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    West NJ, Poullis AP, Leicester RJ. The NHS bowel cancer screening programme: a realistic approach with additional benefits. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10(7): 708–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    UK NHS Department of Health. Cancer reform strategy [product no. 283524]. London: Department of Health, 2007 Dec 3 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_081006 [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Lee
    • 1
  • Dominic Muston
    • 2
  • Alison Sweet
    • 3
  • Chris Cunningham
    • 4
  • Andrew Slater
    • 4
  • Kevin Lock
    • 2
  1. 1.GE HealthcareWaukeshaUSA
  2. 2.Heron Evidence DevelopmentLutonUK
  3. 3.GE HealthcareChalfont St GilesUK
  4. 4.Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS TrustOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations