Cost-effectiveness of early colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection

Digestive and Liver Disease

Volumn 41, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 881-885

  Hassan, C ^a   Pickhardt, P J ^b,c   Zullo, A ^a   Di Giulio, E ^d   Laghi, A ^e   Kim, D H ^b,c   Iafrate, F ^e  

^a NUOVO REGINA MARGHERITA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^d SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^e University Polo Pontino   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Endoscopy; Follow up colorectal cancer

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION TREE; DISEASE SIMULATION; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MEDICARE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT;

COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST OF ILLNESS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS;

EID: 70350574727     PISSN: 15908658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2009.03.016     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Boyle P., and Ferlay J. Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe, 2004. Ann Oncol 16 (2005) 481-488
2. Weir H.K., Thun M.J., Hankey B.F., et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (2003) 1276-1299
3. Rex D.K., Kahi C.J., Levin B., et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 130 (2006) 1865-1871
4. Winawer S.J., Zauber A.G., Fletcher R.H., 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. Gastroenterology 130 (2006) 1872-1885
5. Green R.J., Metlay J.P., Propert K., et al. Surveillance for second primary colorectal cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy: an analysis of Intergroup 0089. Ann Intern Med 136 (2002) 261-269
6. Winawer S., Fletcher R., Rex D., et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124 (2003) 544-560
7. Beinfeld M.T., Wittenberg E., and Gazelle G.S. Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening. Radiology 234 (2005) 415-422
8. Hassan C., Pickhardt P.J., Laghi A., Kim D.H., Zullo A., Iafrate F., et al. CT colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med 168 (2008) 696-705
9. Marshall D., Simpson K.N., Earle C.C., and Chu C.W. Economic decision analysis model of screening for lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 37 (2001) 1759-1767
10. Mahadevia P.J., Fleisher L.A., Frick K.D., et al. Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers. J Am Med Assoc 289 (2003) 313-322
11. Frazier A.L., Colditz G.A., Fuchs C.S., and Kuntz K.M. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. J Am Med Assoc 284 (2000) 1954-1961
12. Tengs T.O., and Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38 (2000) 583-637
13. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), U.S. city average, medical care. Available at: www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm [accessed November 12, 2007].
14. Lieberman D.A. Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology 109 (1995) 1781-1790
15. National compensation survey: occupational wages in the United States, June 2005. Available at: www.bls.gov. Accessed April 14, 2007.
16. Lieberman D.A., Holub J., Eisen G., Kraemer D., and Morris C.D. Prevalence of polyps greater than 9 mm in a consortium of diverse clinical practice settings in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3 (2005) 798-805
17. Imperiale T.F., Wagner D.R., Lin C.Y., Larkin G.N., Rogge J.D., and Ransohoff D.F. Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med 343 (2000) 169-174
18. Stryker S.J., Wolff B.G., Culp C.E., Libbe S.D., Ilstrup D.M., and MacCarty R.L. Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology 93 (1987) 1009-1013
19. http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ [accessed at www.cdc.gov on November 12, 2007].
20. Hassan C., Gaglia P., Zullo A., et al. Endoscopic follow-up after colorectal cancer resection: an Italian multicentre study. Dig Liver Dis 38 (2006) 45-50
21. Cali R.L., Pitsch R.M., Thorson A.G., et al. Cumulative incidence of metachronous colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 36 (1993) 388-393
22. Pignone M., Saha S., Hoerger T., and Mandelblatt J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137 (2002) 96-104
23. Pickhardt P.J., Choi J.R., Hwang I., et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349 (2003) 2191-2200
24. Life tables. Vital statistics of the United States. Preprint of Volume II, mortality, part A, section 6. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1998.
25. Pickhardt P.J., Hassan C., Laghi A., Zullo A., Kim D.H., and Morini S. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer 109 (2007) 2213-2221
26. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pfslookup [accessed at www.cms.hhs.gov on November 12, 2007].