van Hees Frank, Saini Sameer D, Lansdorp-Vogelaar Iris, Vijan Sandeep, Meester Reinier G S, de Koning Harry J, Zauber Ann G, van Ballegooijen Marjolein
Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Veteran Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Gastroenterology. 2015 Nov;149(6):1425-37. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.07.042. Epub 2015 Aug 4.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions for elderly individuals are often made primarily on the basis of age, whereas other factors that influence the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening are often not considered. We investigated the relative importance of factors that could be used to identify elderly individuals most likely to benefit from CRC screening and determined the maximum ages at which screening remains cost effective based on these factors.
We used a microsimulation model (Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon) calibrated to the incidence of CRC in the United States and the prevalence of adenomas reported in autopsy studies to determine the appropriate age at which to stop colonoscopy screening in 19,200 cohorts (of 10 million individuals), defined by sex, race, screening history, background risk for CRC, and comorbidity status. We applied a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Less intensive screening history, higher background risk for CRC, and fewer comorbidities were associated with cost-effective screening at older ages. Sex and race had only a small effect on the appropriate age to stop screening. For some individuals likely to be screened in current practice (for example, 74-year-old white women with moderate comorbidities, half the average background risk for CRC, and negative findings from a screening colonoscopy 10 years previously), screening resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain. For some individuals unlikely to be screened in current practice (for example, 81-year-old black men with no comorbidities, an average background risk for CRC, and no previous screening), screening was highly cost effective. Although screening some previously screened, low-risk individuals was not cost effective even when they were 66 years old, screening some healthy, high-risk individuals remained cost effective until they reached the age of 88 years old.
The current approach to CRC screening in elderly individuals, in which decisions are often based primarily on age, is inefficient, resulting in underuse of screening for some and overuse of screening for others. CRC screening could be more effective and cost effective if individual factors for each patient are considered.
老年个体的结直肠癌(CRC)筛查决策通常主要基于年龄做出,而其他影响筛查有效性和成本效益的因素往往未被考虑。我们调查了可用于识别最有可能从CRC筛查中获益的老年个体的因素的相对重要性,并根据这些因素确定了筛查仍具成本效益的最大年龄。
我们使用了一个微观模拟模型(结肠微观模拟筛查分析),该模型根据美国CRC的发病率和尸检研究中报告的腺瘤患病率进行校准,以确定在19200个队列(共1000万人)中停止结肠镜筛查的合适年龄,这些队列由性别、种族、筛查史、CRC背景风险和共病状况定义。我们应用了每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)100000美元的支付意愿阈值。
筛查史不那么密集、CRC背景风险较高以及共病较少与老年时具有成本效益的筛查相关。性别和种族对停止筛查的合适年龄影响较小。对于当前实践中可能接受筛查的一些个体(例如,74岁的白人女性,有中度共病,CRC背景风险为平均风险的一半,10年前结肠镜筛查结果为阴性),筛查导致QALY损失而非获益。对于当前实践中不太可能接受筛查的一些个体(例如,81岁的黑人男性,无共病,CRC背景风险为平均风险,且以前未进行过筛查),筛查具有很高的成本效益。尽管对一些先前接受过筛查的低风险个体进行筛查即使在他们66岁时也不具有成本效益,但对一些健康的高风险个体进行筛查直到88岁仍具有成本效益。
目前老年个体CRC筛查的方法通常主要基于年龄做出决策,效率低下,导致一些人筛查不足,而另一些人筛查过度。如果考虑每个患者的个体因素,CRC筛查可能会更有效且更具成本效益。