Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm

被引:117
作者
Hassan, Cesare [1 ]
Pickhardt, Perry [2 ,3 ]
Laghi, Andrea [4 ]
Kim, Daniel [2 ]
Zullo, Angelo [1 ]
Iafrate, Franco [4 ]
Di Giulio, Lorenzo [5 ]
Morini, Sergio [1 ]
机构
[1] Osped Nuovo Regina Margherita, Gastroenterol & Digest Endoscopy Unit, I-00153 Rome, Italy
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Madison, WI 53706 USA
[3] Uniformed Serv Univ Hlth Sci, Dept Radiol, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA
[4] Univ Polo Pontino, Dept Radiol Sci, Rome, Italy
[5] Univ Roma Tor Vergata, Dept Vasc Surg, Rome, Italy
关键词
D O I
10.1001/archinte.168.7.696
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: in addition to detecting colorectal neoplasia, abdominal computed tomography (CT) with colonography technique (CTC) can also detect unsuspected extracolonic cancers and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this combined abdominal CT screening strategy are unknown. Methods: A computerized Markov model was constructed to simulate the occurrence of colorectal neoplasia. extracolonic malignant neoplasm, and AAA in a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 subjects from the United States who were 50 years of age. Simulated screening with CTC, using a 6-mm polyp size threshold for reporting, was compared with a competing model of optical colonoscopy (OC), both without and with abdominal ultrasonography for AAA detection (OC-US strategy). Results: In the simulated population, CTC was the dominant screening strategy, gaining an additional 1458 and 462 life-years compared with the OC and OC-US strategies and being less costly, with a savings of $266 and $449 per person, respectively. The additional gains for CTC were largely due to a decrease in AAA-related deaths, whereas the modeled benefit from extracolonic cancer downstaging was a relatively minor factor. At sensitivity analysis, OC-US became 1 more cost-effective only when the CTC sensitivity for large polyps dropped to 61% or when broad variations of costs were simulated, such as an increase in CTC cost from $814 to $1300 or a decrease in OC cost from $1100 to $500. With the OC-US approach, suboptimal compliance had a strong negative influence on efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The estimated mortality from CT-induced cancer was less than estimated colonoscopy-related mortality (8 vs 22 deaths), both of which were minor compared with the positive benefit from screening. Conclusion: When detection of extracolonic findings such as AAA and extracolonic cancer are considered in addition to colorectal neoplasia in our model simulation, CT colonography is a dominant screening strategy (ie, more clinically effective and more cost-effective) over both colonoscopy and colonoscopy with 1-time ultrasonography.
引用
收藏
页码:696 / 705
页数:10
相关论文
共 56 条
[1]   The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial [J].
Ashton, HA ;
Buxton, MJ ;
Day, NE ;
Kim, LG ;
Marteau, TM ;
Scott, RAP ;
Thomspon, SG ;
Walker, NM .
LANCET, 2002, 360 (9345) :1531-1539
[2]   Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening [J].
Beinfeld, MT ;
Wittenberg, E ;
Gazelle, GS .
RADIOLOGY, 2005, 234 (02) :415-422
[3]   Abdominal aortic aneurysms: Cost-effectiveness of elective endovascular and open surgical repair [J].
Bosch, JL ;
Kaufman, JA ;
Beinfeld, MT ;
Adriaensen, MEAPM ;
Brewster, DC ;
Gazelle, GS .
RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 (02) :337-344
[4]   Mass screening with CT colonography: Should the radiation exposure be of concern? [J].
Brenner, DJ ;
Georgsson, MA .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2005, 129 (01) :328-337
[5]   A case-cohort study for the disease natural history of adenoma-carcinoma and de novo carcinoma and surveillance of colon and rectum after polypectomy:: implication for efficacy of colonoscopy [J].
Chen, CD ;
Yen, MF ;
Wang, WM ;
Wong, JM ;
Chen, TH .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2003, 88 (12) :1866-1873
[6]   Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy) - A multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia [J].
Cotton, PB ;
Durkalski, VL ;
Benoit, PC ;
Palesch, YY ;
Mauldin, PD ;
Hoffman, B ;
Vining, DJ ;
Small, WC ;
Affronti, J ;
Rex, D ;
Kopecky, KK ;
Ackerman, S ;
Burdick, JS ;
Brewington, C ;
Turner, MA ;
Zfass, A ;
Wright, AR ;
Iyer, RB ;
Lynch, P ;
Sivak, MV ;
Butler, H .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (14) :1713-1719
[7]  
DISARIO JA, 1991, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V86, P941
[8]   Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: A best-evidence systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force [J].
Fleming, C ;
Whitlock, EP ;
Bell, TL ;
Lederle, FA .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2005, 142 (03) :203-211
[9]   Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: Evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population [J].
Gluecker, TM ;
Johnson, CD ;
Wilson, LA ;
MacCarty, RL ;
Welch, TJ ;
Vanness, DJ ;
Ahlquist, DA .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2003, 124 (04) :911-916
[10]   CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: Systematic review meta-analysis and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting [J].
Halligan, S ;
Altman, DG ;
Taylor, SA ;
Mallett, S ;
Deeks, JJ ;
Bartram, CI ;
Atkin, W .
RADIOLOGY, 2005, 237 (03) :893-904