http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/15079/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/33228/ 2011-11-01T00:00:00Z Purpose: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk asymptomatic subjects in the United States aged 50 years. Materials and Methods: Enrollees in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network National CT Colonography Trial provided informed consent, and approval was obtained from the institutional review board at each site. CT colonography performance estimates from the trial were incorporated into three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network CRC microsimulations. Simulated survival and lifetime costs for screening 50-year-old subjects in the United States with CT colonography every 5 or 10 years were compared with those for guideline-concordant screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus either sensitive unrehydrated fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and no screening. Perfect and reduced screening adherence scenarios were considered. Incremental cost-effectiveness and net health benefits were estimated from the U.S. health care sector perspective, assuming a 3% discount rate. Results: CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy in all three models in both 100% and 50% adherence scenarios. Colonoscopy also was more costly and less effective than FOBT plus flexible sigmoidoscopy, except in the CRC-SPIN model assuming 100% adherence (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $26 300 per life-year gained). CT colonography at 5- and 10-year screening intervals and colonoscopy were net beneficial compared with no screening in all model scenarios. The 5-year screening interval was net beneficial over the 10-year interval except in the MISCAN model when assuming 100% adherence and willingness to pay $50 000 per life-year gained. Conclusion: All three models predict CT colonography to be more costly and less effective than non-CT colonographic screening but net beneficial compared with no screening given model assumptions. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/33761/ 2011-07-01T00:00:00Z Background. As the complexity of microsimulation models increases, concerns about model transparency are heightened. Methods. The authors conducted model "experiments" to explore the impact of variations in "deep" model parameters using 3 colorectal cancer (CRC) models. All natural history models were calibrated to match observed data on adenoma prevalence and cancer incidence but varied in their underlying specification of the adenocarcinoma process. The authors projected CRC incidence among individuals with an underlying adenoma or preclinical cancer v. those without any underlying condition and examined the impact of removing adenomas. They calculated the percentage of simulated CRC cases arising from adenomas that developed within 10 or 20 years prior to cancer diagnosis and estimated dwell time-defined as the time from the development of an adenoma to symptom-detected cancer in the absence of screening among individuals with a CRC diagnosis. Results. The 20-year CRC incidence among 55-year-old individuals with an adenoma or preclinical cancer was 7 to 75 times greater than in the condition-free group. The removal of all adenomas among the subgroup with an underlying adenoma or cancer resulted in a reduction of 30% to 89% in cumulative incidence. Among CRCs diagnosed at age 65 years, the proportion arising from adenomas formed within 10 years ranged between 4% and 67%. The mean dwell time varied from 10.6 to 25.8 years. Conclusions. Models that all match observed data on adenoma prevalence and cancer incidence can produce quite different dwell times and very different answers with respect to the effectiveness of interventions. When conducting applied analyses to inform policy, using multiple models provides a sensitivity analysis on key (unobserved) "deep" model parameters and can provide guidance about specific areas in need of additional research and validation. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/33763/ 2011-07-01T00:00:00Z Background. Microsimulation models are important decision support tools for screening. However, their complexity makes them difficult to understand and limits realization of their full potential. Therefore, it is important to develop documentation that clarifies their structure and assumptions. The authors demonstrate this problem and explore a solution for natural history using 3 independently developed colorectal cancer screening models. Methods. The authors first project effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy screening for the 3 models (CRC-SPIN, SimCRC, and MISCAN). Next, they provide a conventional presentation of each model, including information on structure and parameter values. Finally, they report the simulated reduction in clinical cancer incidence following a one-time complete removal of adenomas and preclinical cancers for each model. They call this new measure the maximum clinical incidence reduction (MCLIR). Results. Projected effectiveness varies widely across models. For example, estimated mortality reduction for colonoscopy screening every 10 years from age 50 to 80 years, with surveillance in adenoma patients, ranges from 65% to 92%. Given only conventional information, it is difficult to explain these differences, largely because differences in structure make parameter values incomparable. In contrast, the MCLIR clearly shows the impact of model differences on the key feature of natural history, the dwell time of preclinical disease. Dwell times vary from 8 to 25 years across models and help explain differences in projected screening effectiveness. Conclusions. The authors propose a new measure, the MCLIR, which summarizes the implications for predicted screening effectiveness of differences in natural history assumptions. Including the MCLIR in the standard description of a screening model would improve the transparency of these models. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/33876/ 2011-04-01T00:00:00Z OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to estimate the ratio of cancers prevented to induced (benefit-risk ratio) for CT colonography (CTC) screening every 5 years from the age of 50 to 80 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Radiation-related cancer risk was estimated using risk projection models based on the National Research Council's Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII Committee's report and screening protocols from the American College of Radiology Imaging Network's National CT Colonography Trial. Uncertainty intervals were estimated using Monte Carlo simulation methods. Comparative modeling with three colorectal cancer microsimulation models was used to estimate the potential reduction in colorectal cancer cases and deaths. RESULTS. The estimated mean effective dose per CTC screening study was 8 mSv for women and 7 mSv for men. The estimated number of radiation-related cancers resulting from CTC screening every 5 years from the age of 50 to 80 years was 150 cases/100,000 individuals screened (95% uncertainty interval, 80-280) for men and women. The estimated number of colorectal cancers prevented by CTC every 5 years from age 50 to 80 ranged across the three microsimulation models from 3580 to 5190 cases/100,000 individuals screened, yielding a benefit-risk ratio that varied from 24:1 (95% uncertainty interval, 13:1-45:1) to 35:1 (19:1-65:1). The benefit-risk ratio for cancer deaths was even higher than the ratio for cancer cases. Inclusion of radiation-related cancer risks from CT examinations performed to follow up extracolonic findings did not materially alter the results. CONCLUSION. Concerns have been raised about recommending CTC as a routine screening tool because of potential harms including the radiation risks. Based on these models, the benefits from CTC screening every 5 years from the age of 50 to 80 years clearly outweigh the radiation risks. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27406/ 2010-11-03T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27354/ 2010-08-18T00:00:00Z Background The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) considered whether to reimburse computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening of Medicare enrollees. To help inform its decision, we evaluated the reimbursement rate at which CTC screening could be cost-effective compared with the colorectal cancer screening tests that are currently reimbursed by CMS and are included in most colorectal cancer screening guidelines, namely annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years in conjunction with annual FOBT, and colonoscopy every 10 years.MethodsWe used three independently developed microsimulation models to assess the health outcomes and costs associated with CTC screening and with currently reimbursed colorectal cancer screening tests among the average-risk Medicare population. We assumed that CTC was performed every 5 years (using test characteristics from either a Department of Defense CTC study or the National CTC Trial) and that individuals with findings of 6 mm or larger were referred to colonoscopy. We computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the currently reimbursed screening tests and calculated the maximum cost per scan (ie, the threshold cost) for the CTC strategy to lie on the efficient frontier. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key parameters and assumptions.ResultsAssuming perfect adherence with all tests, the undiscounted number life-years gained from CTC screening ranged from 143 to 178 per 1000 65-year-olds, which was slightly less than the number of life-years gained from 10-yearly colonoscopy (152-185 per 1000 65-year-olds) and comparable to that from 5-yearly sigmoidoscopy with annual FOBT (149-177 per 1000 65-year-olds). If CTC screening was reimbursed at $488 per scan (slightly less than the reimbursement for a colonoscopy without polypectomy), it would be the most costly strategy. CTC screening could be cost-effective at $108-$205 per scan, depending on the microsimulation model used. Sensitivity analyses showed that if relative adherence to CTC screening was 25% higher than adherence to other tests, it could be cost-effective if reimbursed at $488 per scan.ConclusionsCTC could be a cost-effective option for colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees if the reimbursement rate per scan is substantially less than that for colonoscopy or if a large proportion of otherwise unscreened persons were to undergo screening by CTC. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/35969/ 2007-03-01T00:00:00Z Clinical journals increasingly illustrate uncertainty about the cost and effect of health care interventions using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). CEACs present the probability that each competing alternative is optimal for a range of values of the cost-effectiveness threshold. The objective of this article is to demonstrate the limitations of CEACs for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses. These limitations arise because the CEAC is unable to distinguish dramatically different joint distributions of incremental cost and effect. A CEAC is not sensitive to any change of the incremental joint distribution in the upper left and lower right quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane; neither is it sensitive to radial shift of the incremental joint distribution in the upper right and lower left quadrants. As a result, CEACs are ambiguous to risk-averse policy makers, inhibit integration with risk attitude, hamper synthesis with other evidence or opinions, and are unhelpful to assess the need for more research. Moreover, CEACs may mislead policy makers and can incorrectly suggest medical importance. Both for guiding immediate decisions and for prioritizing future research, these considerable drawbacks of CEACs should make us rethink their use in communicating uncertainty. As opposed to CEACs, confidence and credible intervals do not conflate magnitude and precision of the net benefit of health care interventions. Therefore, they allow (in)formal synthesis of study results with risk attitude and other evidence or opinions. Presenting the value of information in addition to these intervals allows policy makers to evaluate the need for more empirical research. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/13162/ 2003-06-01T00:00:00Z PURPOSE: To determine the costs, sensitivity for detection of significant stenoses, and proportion of equivocal multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography results in the work-up of patients with intermittent claudication that would make this imaging examination cost-effective compared with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision model was used to compare the societal cost-effectiveness of a new imaging modality with that of gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. By using threshold analysis of a given willingness to pay per QALY, target values for costs, sensitivity for detection of significant stenoses, and proportion of cases requiring additional work-up with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography owing to equivocal results of the new modality were determined. The base case evaluated was that of 60-year-old men with severe intermittent claudication and assumed an incremental cost-effectiveness threshold of 100,000 US dollars per QALY. RESULTS: If treatment were limited to angioplasty, a new imaging modality would be cost-effective if the costs were 300 US dollars and the sensitivity was 85%, even if up to 35% of patients needed additional work-up. When both angioplasty and bypass surgery were considered as treatment options, a new imaging modality was cost-effective if the costs were 300 US dollars, the sensitivity was higher than 94%, and 20% of patients required additional work-up. CONCLUSION: Multi-detector row CT angiography, as compared with currently used imaging modalities such as MR angiography, has the potential to be cost-effective in the evaluation of patients with intermittent claudication.