Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening With a Blood Test That Meets the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Coverage Decision
Not Available
van den Puttelaar, Rosita (ORCID:0000000322166557)↗
Engineering topics
Rutter, Carolyn M.
Publications and source records attributed to Rutter, Carolyn M..
Characteristics of a cost-effective blood test for colorectal cancer screening
Background: Blood-based biomarker tests can potentially change the landscape of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We characterize the conditions under which blood test screening would be as effective and cost-effective as annual fecal immunochemical testing or decennial colonoscopy. Methods: We used the 3 Cancer Information and Surveillance Modeling Network–Colon models to compare scenarios of no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing, decennial colonoscopy, and a blood test meeting Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) coverage criteria (74% CRC sensitivity and 90% specificity). We varied the sensitivity to detect CRC (74%-92%), advanced adenomas (10%-50%), screening interval (1-3 years), and test cost ($25-$500). Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained from screening and costs for a US average-risk cohort of individuals aged 45 years. Results: Annual fecal immunochemical testing yielded 125-163 QALY gained per 1000 at a cost of 3811-5384 dollars per person, whereas colonoscopy yielded 132-177 QALY gained at a cost of 5375-7031 dollars per person. A blood test with 92% CRC sensitivity and 50% advanced adenoma sensitivity yielded 117-162 QALY gained if used every 3 years and 133-173 QALY gained if used every year but would not be cost-effective if priced above $$125 per test. If used every 3 years, a $500 blood test only meeting CMS coverage criteria yielded 83-116 QALY gained at a cost of $8559-$9413 per person. Conclusion: Blood tests that only meet CMS coverage requirements should not be recommended to patients who would otherwise undergo screening by colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing because of lower benefit. Blood tests need higher advanced adenoma sensitivity (above 40%) and lower costs (below $125) to be cost-effective.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
NordICC Trial Results in Line With Expected Colorectal Cancer Mortality Reduction After Colonoscopy: A Modeling Study
Not Available
van den Berg, Danica M. N. (ORCID:0000000309375274↗
Projected long-term effects of colorectal cancer screening disruptions following the COVID-19 pandemic
The aftermath of the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to the widening of disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes due to differential disruptions to CRC screening. This comparative microsimulation analysis uses two CISNET CRC models to simulate the impact of ongoing screening disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term CRC outcomes. We evaluate three channels through which screening was disrupted: delays in screening, regimen switching, and screening discontinuation. The impact of these disruptions on long-term CRC outcomes was measured by the number of life-years lost due to CRC screening disruptions compared to a scenario without any disruptions. While short-term delays in screening of 3–18 months are predicted to result in minor life-years loss, discontinuing screening could result in much more significant reductions in the expected benefits of screening. These results demonstrate that unequal recovery of screening following the pandemic can widen disparities in CRC outcomes and emphasize the importance of ensuring equitable recovery to screening following the pandemic.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
Sequentially calibrating a Bayesian microsimulation model to incorporate new information and assumptions
Background: Microsimulation models are mathematical models that simulate event histories for individual members of a population. They are useful for policy decisions because they simulate a large number of individuals from an idealized population, with features that change over time, and the resulting event histories can be summarized to describe key population-level outcomes. Model calibration is the process of incorporating evidence into the model. Calibrated models can be used to make predictions about population trends in disease outcomes and effectiveness of interventions, but calibration can be challenging and computationally expensive. Methods: This paper develops a technique for sequentially updating models to take full advantage of earlier calibration results, to ultimately speed up the calibration process. A Bayesian approach to calibration is used because it combines different sources of evidence and enables uncertainty quantification which is appealing for decision-making. We develop this method in order to re-calibrate a microsimulation model for the natural history of colorectal cancer to include new targets that better inform the time from initiation of preclinical cancer to presentation with clinical cancer (sojourn time), because model exploration and validation revealed that more information was needed on sojourn time, and that the predicted percentage of patients with cancers detected via colonoscopy screening was too low. Results: The sequential approach to calibration was more efficient than recalibrating the model from scratch. Incorporating new information on the percentage of patients with cancers detected upon screening changed the estimated sojourn time parameters significantly, increasing the estimated mean sojourn time for cancers in the colon and rectum, providing results with more validity. Conclusions: A sequential approach to recalibration can be used to efficiently recalibrate a microsimulation model when new information becomes available that requires the original targets to be supplemented with additional targets.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
Too Good to Be True? Evaluation of Colonoscopy Sensitivity Assumptions Used in Policy Models
Background: Models can help guide colorectal cancer screening policy. Although models are carefully calibrated and validated, there is less scrutiny of assumptions about test performance. Methods: We examined the validity of the CRC-SPIN model and colonoscopy sensitivity assumptions. Standard sensitivity assumptions, consistent with published decision analyses, assume sensitivity equal to 0.75 for diminutive adenomas (<6 mm), 0.85 for small adenomas (6–10 mm), 0.95 for large adenomas (≥10 mm), and 0.95 for preclinical cancer. We also selected adenoma sensitivity that resulted in more accurate predictions. Targets were drawn from the Wheat Bran Fiber study. In the study, we examined how well the model predicted outcomes measured over a three-year follow-up period, including the number of adenomas detected, the size of the largest adenoma detected, and incident colorectal cancer. Results: Using standard sensitivity assumptions, the model predicted adenoma prevalence that was too low (42.5% versus 48.9% observed, with 95% confidence interval 45.3%–50.7%) and detection of too few large adenomas (5.1% versus 14.% observed, with 95% confidence interval 11.8%–17.4%). Predictions were close to targets when we set sensitivities to 0.20 for diminutive adenomas, 0.60 for small adenomas, 0.80 for 10- to 20-mm adenomas, and 0.98 for adenomas 20 mm and larger. Conclusions: Colonoscopy may be less accurate than currently assumed, especially for diminutive adenomas. Alternatively, the CRC-SPIN model may not accurately simulate onset and progression of adenomas in higher-risk populations. Impact: Misspecification of either colonoscopy sensitivity or disease progression in high-risk populations may affect the predicted effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. When possible, decision analyses used to inform policy should address these uncertainties.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
Reopening California: Seeking robust, non-dominated COVID-19 exit strategies
The COVID-19 pandemic required significant public health interventions from local governments. Although nonpharmaceutical interventions often were implemented as decision rules, few studies evaluated the robustness of those reopening plans under a wide range of uncertainties. This paper uses the Robust Decision Making approach to stress-test 78 alternative reopening strategies, using California as an example. This study uniquely considers a wide range of uncertainties and demonstrates that seemingly sensible reopening plans can lead to both unnecessary COVID-19 deaths and days of interventions. We find that plans using fixed COVID-19 case thresholds might be less effective than strategies with time-varying reopening thresholds. While we use California as an example, our results are particularly relevant for jurisdictions where vaccination roll-out has been slower. The approach used in this paper could also prove useful for other public health policy problems in which policymakers need to make robust decisions in the face of deep uncertainty.
59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗