The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 111, Issue 8 , Pages 593-601, 1 December 2001

Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance

  • Sandeep Vijan, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Sandeep Vijan, MD, MS, Veterans Health Services Research and Development, PO Box 130170, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0170 USA
    • The Veterans Affairs Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research (SV, TPH, RAH), Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    • Department of Internal Medicine (SV, TPH, RAH), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • ,
  • Erica W Hwang, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Internal Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center (EWH), Washington, DC, USA
  • ,
  • Timothy P Hofer, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • The Veterans Affairs Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research (SV, TPH, RAH), Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    • Department of Internal Medicine (SV, TPH, RAH), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • ,
  • Rodney A Hayward, MD

      Affiliations

    • The Veterans Affairs Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research (SV, TPH, RAH), Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    • Department of Internal Medicine (SV, TPH, RAH), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Received 14 February 2001; received in revised form 14 August 2001; accepted 23 August 2001.

Abstract 

Purpose

Recent media reports have advocated the use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. However, colonoscopy is expensive compared with other screening modalities, such as fecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. We sought to determine the cost effectiveness of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer at levels of compliance likely to be achieved in clinical practice.

Methods

A Markov decision model was used to examine screening strategies, including fecal occult blood testing alone, fecal occult blood testing combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy alone, and colonoscopy. The timing and frequency of screening was varied to assess optimal screening intervals. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the factors that have the greatest effect on the cost effectiveness of screening.

Results

All strategies are cost effective versus no screening, at less than $20,000 per life-year saved. Direct comparison suggests that the most effective strategies are twice-lifetime colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal occult blood testing. Assuming perfect compliance, flexible sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal occult blood testing is slightly more effective than twice-lifetime colonoscopy (at ages 50 and 60 years) but is substantially more expensive, with an incremental cost effectiveness of $390,000 per additional life-year saved. However, compliance with primary screening tests and colonoscopic follow-up for polyps affect screening decisions. Colonoscopy at ages 50 and 60 years is the preferred test regardless of compliance with the primary screening test. However, if follow-up colonoscopy for polyps is less than 75%, then even once-lifetime colonoscopy is preferred over most combinations of flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing. Costs of colonoscopy and proportion of cancer arising from polyps also affect cost effectiveness.

Conclusions

Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer appears preferable to current screening recommendations. Screening recommendations should be tailored to the compliance levels achievable in different practice settings.

Keywords:  Colorectal cancer, Screening, Compliance, Cost effectiveness

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Timothy P. Hofer, MD, MS, and Sandeep Vijan, MD, MS, are recipients of the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Career Development Award, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

PII: S0002-9343(01)00977-9

The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 111, Issue 8 , Pages 593-601, 1 December 2001