Flexible sigmoidoscopy training and its impact on colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is an ideal disease for prevention with screening programs. Efforts to increase compliance with screening recommendations have included training primary care physicians to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of flexible sigmoidoscopy training on compliance with current screening recommendations. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 232 patients cared for by physicians in a primary care network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of screening for colorectal cancer and rates of undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy were compared across patient groups according to the physician's training and whether the physician performs flexible sigmoidoscopy in his or her practice. RESULTS: Among 217 patients included in the analysis, 122 (56%) were cared for by physicians who were trained in flexible sigmoidoscopy, of whom 79 (36%) were cared for by physicians who perform flexible sigmoidoscopy in their practice. Patients cared for by physicians trained in flexible sigmoidoscopy were not significantly more likely to receive any colorectal cancer screening than were patients cared for by physicians not trained in flexible sigmoidoscopy (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-2.01). However, patients cared for by physicians who perform flexible sigmoidoscopy in their practice were more likely to have undergone any colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.95) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.36). CONCLUSION: Performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy by primary care physicians has the potential to increase the rate of colorectal cancer screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy.     

Screening Colonoscopies by Primary Care Physicians: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE There is currently too few endoscopists to enact a national colorectal cancer screening program with colonoscopy. Primary care physicians could play an important role in filling this shortage by offering screening colonoscopy in their practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and effectiveness of colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians.     

Designing Guidelines for Those Who Do Not Follow Them: The Impact of Adherence Assumptions on Optimal Screening Guidelines

ObjectivesModel-based cost-effectiveness analyses can inform decisions about screening guidelines by quantifying consequences of alternative algorithms. Although actual screening adherence is imperfect, incorporating nonadherence into analyses that aim to determine optimal screening may affect the policy recommendations. We evaluated the impact of nonadherence assumptions on the optimal cervical cancer screening in Norway.MethodsWe used a microsimulation model of cervical carcinogenesis to project the long-term health and economic outcomes under alternative screening algorithms and adherence patterns. We compared 18 algorithms involving primary human papillomavirus testing (5-yearly) that varied follow-up management of different human papillomavirus results. We considered 12 adherence scenarios: perfect adherence, 8 high- and low-coverage “random-complier” scenarios, and 3 “systematic-complier” scenarios that reflect conditional screening behavior over a lifetime. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and considered a strategy with the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio < 55 000 US dollars/quality-adjusted life-year as “optimal.”ResultsUnder perfect adherence, the least intensive screening strategy was optimal; in contrast, assuming any nonadherence resulted in a more intensive optimal strategy. Accounting for lower adherence resulted in both lower costs and health benefits, which allowed for a more intensive strategy to be considered optimal, but more harms for women who screen according to guidelines (ie, up to 41% more colposcopies when comparing the optimal strategy in the lowest-adherence scenario with the optimal strategy under perfect adherence).ConclusionsAssuming nonadherence in analyses designed to inform national guidelines may lead to a relatively more intensive recommendation. Designing guidelines for those who do not adhere to them may lead to over-screening of those who do.     

Evaluating the Use of microRNA Blood Tests for Gastric Cancer Screening in a Stratified Population-Level Screening Program: An Early Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesTo evaluate cost-effectiveness of a novel screening strategy using a microRNA (miRNA) blood test as a screen, followed by endoscopy for diagnosis confirmation in a 3-yearly population screening program for gastric cancer.MethodsA Markov cohort model has been developed in Microsoft Excel 2016 for the population identified to be at intermediate risk (Singaporean men, aged 50-75 years with Chinese ethnicity). The interventions compared were (1) initial screening using miRNA test followed by endoscopy for test-positive individuals and a 3-yearly follow-up screening for test-negative individuals (proposed strategy), and (2) no screening with gastric cancer being diagnosed clinically (current practice). The model was evaluated for 25 years with a healthcare perspective and accounted for test characteristics, compliance, disease progression, cancer recurrence, costs, utilities, and mortality. The outcomes measured included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cancer stage at diagnosis, and thresholds for significant variables.ResultsThe miRNA-based screening was found to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40 971/quality-adjusted life-year. Key drivers included test costs, test accuracy, cancer incidence, and recurrence risk. Threshold analysis highlights the need for high accuracy of miRNA tests (threshold sensitivity: 68%; threshold specificity: 77%). A perfect compliance to screening would double the cancer diagnosis in early stages compared to the current practice. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis reported the miRNA-based screening to be cost-effective in >95% of iterations for a willingness to pay of $70 000/quality-adjusted life-year (approximately equivalent to 1 gross domestic product/capita)ConclusionsThe miRNA-based screening intervention was found to be cost-effective and is expected to contribute immensely in early diagnosis of cancer by improving screening compliance.     

Physician compliance with colorectal cancer screening (1978-1983): the impact of flexible sigmoidoscopy

Physician compliance with widely recommended colorectal cancer screening methods was studied over a five-year period in a university-based family medicine residency program. Indicated examinations were being avoided in symptomatic as well as asymptomatic patients aged over 50 years. The introduction of flexible sigmoidoscopy created significant change in previously documented poor resident and faculty compliance. Baseline measurement of outcomes was noted by audit of 189 adult medical records (year 1). Educational reemphasis by lecture and intragroup commitment produced no change by the end of year 2 (n = 189). Introduction of the flexible sigmoidoscope yielded a sevenfold increase in physician compliance in year 3 (n = 192). This compliance increased as measured by chart audit in years 4 (n = 166) and 5 (n = 190). All audited groups were mutually exclusive. The documented diagnostic superiority of this instrument was readily obtainable by family physician faculty and residents in training. With Papanicolaou smear activity serving as a control group, the findings indicated a significant and sustained effect. Two additional primary care training programs were audited during the final year of the study period. These control audits revealed continued poor compliance with rigid sigmoidoscopy. The flexible sigmoidoscope is an important addition to the diagnostic and screening armamentarium of a family medicine residency program.     

How to screen for cervical cancer after HPV16/18 vaccination in The Netherlands

In The Netherlands, vaccination against HPV16/18 has been recommended for all 12-year-old girls. Because screening of vaccinated women remains important, we evaluated the model-based cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening strategies. We considered cytology and the HPV DNA test as primary screening instrument, varied the number of screening rounds from 7 to 4, and set the screening starting age at 30 and 35 years. Our model predicted reductions in cervical cancer mortality between 60 and 81% (from 199 deaths to 37–79) when adding screening to vaccination (assumptions for vaccination: 95% efficacy, 100% compliance, lifelong protection). Screening 5 times with HPV DNA (€11,133/QALY) or 7 times with cytology (€17,627/QALY) were scenarios with comparable costs and effects and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below the threshold in The Netherlands (€20,000 per QALY).     

Physician perspectives on routine pregnancy intention screening and counseling in primary care

ObjectivesTo assess factors associated with routine pregnancy intention screening by primary care physicians and their support for such an initiative.Study designWe conducted a cross-sectional survey study of 443 primary care physicians in New York State. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses of physician support for routine pregnancy intention screening and implementation of screening in the last year. Predictors included in the models were physician age, sex, specialty, clinic setting, and, for the outcome of support for screening, experience with screening in the last year.ResultsIn this convenience sample, the vast majority of respondents from all specialties (88%) felt pregnancy intention screening should be routinely included in primary care, with 48% reporting that they routinely perform such screening. The preferred wording for this question was one which assessed reproductive health service needs. In multivariable analyses, internal medicine physicians were less likely than family medicine physicians to have provided routine pregnancy intention screening (aOR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.09, 0.25). Only 8% of the sample reported they required more training to implement pregnancy intention screening, but more reported needing training prior to contraceptive provision (17%), contraceptive counseling (16%), and preconception care (15%). More internal medicine and other types of doctors cited a need for this additional training than family medicine physicians.ConclusionsMost responding primary care physicians supported routine integration of pregnancy intention screening. Incorporating additional training, especially for internal medicine physicians, in contraception and preconception care counseling is key to ensuring success.Implications statementResponding primary care physicians supported routine inclusion of reproductive health needs assessment in primary care. Primary care may become increasingly important for ensuring access to a full range of reproductive health services. Providing necessary training, especially for internal medicine physicians, is needed prior to routine inclusion.     

A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A case study using colorectal cancer screening

ObjectivePatient decision aids are important tools for facilitating balanced, evidence-based decision making. However, the potential of decision aids to lower health care utilization and costs is uncertain; few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of decision aids that change patient behavior. Using an example of a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening, we provide a framework for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of decision aids.MethodsA decision-analytic model with two strategies (decision aid or no decision aid) was used to calculate expected costs in U.S. dollars and benefits measured in life-years saved (LYS). Data from a systematic review of ten studies about decision aid effectiveness was used to calculate the percentage increase in the number of people choosing screening instead of no screening. We then calculated the incremental cost per LYS with the use of the decision aid.ResultsThe no decision aid strategy had an expected cost of $3023 and yielded 18.19 LYS. The decision aid strategy cost $3249 and yielded 18.20 LYS. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the decision aid strategy was $36,126 per LYS. Results were sensitive to the cost of the decision aid and the percentage change in behavior caused by the decision aid.ConclusionsThis study provides proof-of-concept evidence for future studies examining the cost-effectiveness of decision aids. The results suggest that decision aids can be beneficial and cost-effective.     

Economic Evaluation of User-Fee Exemption Policies for Maternal Healthcare in Burkina Faso: Evidence From a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesThe reduction and removal of user fees for essential care services have recently become a key instrument to advance universal health coverage in sub-Saharan Africa, but no evidence exists on its cost-effectiveness. We aimed to address this gap by estimating the cost-effectiveness of 2 user-fee exemption interventions in Burkina Faso between 2007 and 2015: the national 80% user-fee reduction policy for delivery care services and the user-fee removal pilot (ie, the complete [100%] user-fee removal for delivery care) in the Sahel region.MethodsWe built a single decision tree to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2 study interventions and the baseline. The decision tree was populated with an own impact evaluation and the best available epidemiological evidence.ResultsRelative to the baseline, both the national 80% user-fee reduction policy and the user-fee removal pilot are highly cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $210.22 and $252.51 per disability-adjusted life-year averted, respectively. Relative to the national 80% user-fee reduction policy, the user-fee removal pilot entails an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $309.74 per disability-adjusted life-year averted.ConclusionsOur study suggests that it is worthwhile for Burkina Faso to move from an 80% reduction to the complete removal of user fees for delivery care. Local analyses should be done to identify whether it is worthwhile to implement user-fee exemptions in other sub-Saharan African countries.     

La salud de los médicos de familia: ¿practicamos lo que predicamos?

AimsTo describe the lifestyle of primary care physicians, their adherence to cancer screening tests and to describe basic aspects of occupational, mental and sexual health.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingPrimary Care. Health Area 7, Madrid.ParticipantsFamily Physicians.MethodsAn anonymous survey sent through the internal mail was completed by the participants. The questionnaire was based on the Cardiovascular Disease Prevention European Guidelines, Health Prevention and Promotion Activities Program (Programa de Actividades Preventivas y de Promoción de la Salud) and the World Health Organisation document on physical activity and health. The Hamilton Anxiety Scale was used to measure anxiety.ResultsA total of 114 primary care physicians participated in the study. The average years of medical practice was 18.29 years (SD: 8.2). Adherence to cardiovascular screening was 70%. Adherence to cervix, breast and colorectal cancer screening was of 73%, 86% and 24%, respectively. Vaccination records were up to date in 51.8% of the participants. A total of 81.6% had a stable sexual partner and 75.2% were satisfied with their sexual relationships. The condom was always used by just 21.1% of the participants. Hamiltońs anxiety scale was abnormal in 74.3% of the physicians, but 90.4% reported to feel good or very good.ConclusionsAdherence to cardiovascular and female cancer screening is adequate, but insufficient in colorectal cancer. Vaccination among the participants was adequate.     

Peer Reviewed: Association of Regional Variation in Primary Care Physicians’ Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations with Individual Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening

Introduction

Studies show that the recommendations of a primary care physician for colorectal cancer screening may be one important influence on an individual''s use of screening. However, another possible influence, the effect of regional differences in physicians'' beliefs and recommendations on screening use, has not been assessed.

Methods

We linked data from the National Health Interview Survey on the use of colorectal cancer screening by respondents aged 50 years or older, by hospital-referral region, with data from the Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices on the colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians, by region. Our principal independent variables were the proportion of physicians in a region who recommended screening at age 50 and continuing screening at the recommended frequency.

Results

On average, 53.3% of physicians in a region correctly recommended initiating colorectal cancer screening, and 64.8% advised screening at the recommended frequency. Of adults who lived in regions where less than 30% of physicians correctly recommended initiating screening, 47.3% had been screened, in contrast to 54.8% in areas where 70% or more of physicians made correct recommendations. Seventy-one percent of respondents living in regions where less than 30% of physicians advised screening at the recommended frequency were current on screening, in contrast to 79.9% of respondents living in regions where 70% or more of physicians made this recommendation. These differences were statistically significant after adjustment for individual characteristics.

Conclusion

Strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians may improve the use of screening for millions of Americans.     

Panel discussion on the application of MCDA tools

Background

Due to its epidemiological relevance, several studies have been performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests and treatments in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

Objective

We reviewed economic evaluations on diagnosis of inherited CRC-syndromes and genetic tests for the detection of mutations associated with response to therapeutics.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed by searching the main literature databases for relevant papers on the field, published in the last 5 years.

Results

20 studies were included in the final analysis: 14 investigating the cost-effectiveness of hereditary-CRC screening; 5 evaluating the cost-effectiveness of KRAS mutation assessment before treatment; and 1 study analysing the cost-effectiveness of genetic tests for early-stage CRC patients prognosis. Overall, we found that: (a) screening strategies among CRC patients were more effective than no screening; (b) all the evaluated interventions were cost-saving for certain willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold; and (c) all new CRC patients diagnosed at age 70 or below should be screened. Regarding patients treatment, we found that KRAS testing is economically sustainable only if anticipated in patients with non-metastatic CRC (mCRC), while becoming unsustainable, due to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) beyond the levels of WTP-threshold, in all others evaluated scenarios.

Conclusions

The poor evidence in the field, combined to the number of assumptions done to perform the models, lead us to a high level of uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness of genetic evaluations in CRC, suggesting that major research is required in order to assess the best combination among detection tests, type of genetic test screening and targeted-therapy.

     

Variations in CRC Screening Practice: Would This Patient Be Screened?

PurposeScreening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States were below the goal of 50% outlined in Healthy People 2010. Physician recommendation is an important predictor of patient compliance. We compared physician CRC screening decision processes (as depicted in decision trees) and examined how variations in decision processes affected decision outcomes. Further, we examined whether those variations could be attributed to physicians’ characteristics and guidelines’ utilization.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians, developed decision trees, compared trees, used trees to predict the recommendation for 8 sample patients, and used regression analysis to identify predictors of variation.ResultsMost of the physicians (77.3%) self-reported following clinical guidelines for CRC screening. Physicians considered an average of 5.9 decision criteria (range 2-12) in making their screening recommendations. Frequently cited criteria included patient age and family history. We documented variation for 3 of 8 sample patients. Regression analysis indicated that complexity of decision process, gender, age, and experience of physicians contributed to recommendations on screening. In addition, the self-report adherence to guidelines did not influence whether a physician would recommend CRC screening.ConclusionsThis study supports the notion that variation in practice is a function of decision processes. Therefore, studying decision processes may facilitate efforts to improve patient outcomes.     

Utilization of colorectal cancer screening tests: a 1997 survey of Massachusetts internists.

BACKGROUND: Physician noncompliance with screening recommendations has been a major barrier to effective colorectal cancer control. The overall objectives of this study were to assess the current attitudes and screening behavior of primary care physicians in light of new efficacy data, revised guidelines, improved technology, and more widespread insurance coverage. METHODS: Questionnaires inquiring about knowledge, beliefs, and practice patterns related to colorectal cancer screening were mailed in mid-1997 to 700 randomly selected Massachusetts internists. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 63%. Nearly 60% of respondents reported an increase in screening behavior during the past 5 years. Most (80%) were aware of at least one set of screening guidelines and 90% reported utilizing one or more recommended screening strategies. Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), alone (47%) or in combination with flexible sigmoidoscopy (50%), was the preferred strategy for most respondents. Colonoscopy was rarely utilized (5%) despite high perceived effectiveness. Concern about patient compliance was a significant determinant of FOBT utilization, whereas perceived effectiveness, concerns about time or efficacy data, prior procedural training, date of licensure, and use of instructional materials were independent determinants of sigmoidoscopy utilization. CONCLUSION: Massachusetts' internists report high rates of utilization of select colorectal cancer screening strategies. Future studies must validate self-reported compliance and explore barriers to screening colonoscopy.     

Cost-Effectiveness of a Serum Biomarker Test for Risk-Stratified Liver Ultrasound Screening for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

ObjectivesRisk-stratified ultrasound screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), informed by a serum biomarker test, enables resources to be targeted to patients at the highest risk of developing cancer. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening for HCC in the Australian healthcare system.MethodsA Markov cohort model was constructed to test 3 scenarios for patients with compensated cirrhosis: (1) risk-stratified screening for high-risk patients, (2) all-inclusive screening, and (3) no formal screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to determine the impact of uncertainty. Scenario analyses were used to assess cost-effectiveness in Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to determine the impact of including productivity-related costs of mortality.ResultsBoth risk-stratified screening and all-inclusive screening programs were cost-effective compared with no formal screening, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of A$39 045 and A$23 090 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively. All-inclusive screening had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$4453 compared with risk-stratified screening and had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of A$50 000 per QALY. Risk-stratified screening had the highest likelihood of cost-effectiveness when the WTP was between A$25 000 and A$35 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness results were further strengthened when applied to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cohort and when productivity costs were included.ConclusionsCirrhosis population-wide screening for HCC is likely to be cost-effective in Australia. Risk-stratified screening using a serum biomarker test may be cost-effective at lower WTP thresholds.     

Physicians’ recommendations for colon cancer screening in women: Too much of a good thing?

Background:Expert groups support periodic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for persons aged 50 and older but not for persons younger than 50. We were interested in community primary care physicians’ recommendations to women for fecal occult blood tests (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (SIG), and colonoscopy (COL).Methods:In a mailed survey of 1,292 community primary care physicians in North Carolina, we queried physicians regarding their recommendations to women for CRC screening.Results:Analysis was performed on 508 respondents (39%). Recommendation for FOBT (96%) and SIG (69%) for women >50 years old was high among all subgroups of physicians. Recommendation for women < 50 years old was high for FOBT (82%) but lower for SIG (28%). Overall, 19% of physicians recommended COL. Recommendation for FOBT, SIG, and COL varied by physician specialty, physician age, perceived patient demand, physician need for additional CRC screening information, practice size, and location.Conclusions:Although increasing physician recommendation for CRC screening is important, primary care physicians report recommending earlier and more aggressive screening than that supported by national guidelines.     

我国结直肠癌筛查卫生经济学证据系统更新：2009－2018

目的 系统更新中国大陆结直肠癌筛查的卫生经济学评价证据。方法 基于2015年发表的系统综述（2004-2014年），扩大检索数据库范围（PubMed、EMbase、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普中文科技期刊数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库），延展时间至2018年12月，重点呈现近10年证据（2009-2018年）。系统摘录研究基本特征及主要结果。成本数据采用医疗保健类居民消费价格指数均贴现至2017年，计算增量成本效果比（ICER）与对应年份全国人均GDP的比值。结果 最终纳入12篇文献（新增8篇），其中9篇基于人群（均为横断面研究），3篇基于模型。起始年龄多为40岁（7篇），筛查频率多为终生1次（11篇）。筛查技术涉及问卷评估、免疫法粪便隐血试验和结肠镜。经济学评价指标以每检出1例结直肠癌的成本最为常见，中位数（范围，筛查方案数）为52 307元（12 967~3 769 801，n=20）；每检出1例腺瘤的成本为9 220元（1 859~40 535，n=10）。3篇文献报告了与不筛查相比，每挽救1个生命年的成本，其ICER与GDP比值为0.673（-0.013~2.459，n=11），是WHO认为的非常经济有效；不同筛查技术间及不同频率间该比值的范围重叠较大，但起始年龄50岁（0.002，-0.013~0.015，n=3）比40岁（0.781，0.321~2.459，n=8）筛查方案更经济有效。结论 人群研究提示腺瘤检出成本仅为癌症检出成本的1/6，有限的ICER证据提示在我国人群开展结直肠癌筛查经济有效；尽管最优初筛技术无法定论，但初步提示筛查起始年龄50岁优于40岁。未见随机对照试验评价等高级别证据。     

Which Is More Valuable,Longer Survival or Better Quality of Life? Israeli Oncologists’ and Family Physicians’ Attitudes Toward the Relative Value of New Cancer and Congestive Heart Failure Interventions

ObjectivesWe determined how Israeli oncologists and family physicians value life-prolongation versus quality-of-life (QOL)-enhancing outcomes attributable to cancer and congestive heart failure interventions.MethodsWe presented physicians with two scenarios involving a hypothetical patient with metastatic cancer expected to survive 12 months with current treatment. In a life-prolongation scenario, we suggested that a new treatment increases survival at an incremental cost of $50,000 over the standard of care. Participants were asked what minimum improvement in median survival the new therapy would need to provide for them to recommend it over the standard of care. In the QOL-enhancing scenario, we asked the maximum willingness to pay for an intervention that leads to the same survival as the standard treatment, but increases patient’s QOL from 50 to 75 (on a 0–100 scale). We replicated these scenarios by substituting a patient with congestive heart failure instead of metastatic cancer. We derived the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained threshold implied by each response.ResultsIn the life-prolongation scenario, the cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by oncologists were $150,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY for cancer and CHF, respectively. Cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by family physicians were $50,000/QALY regardless of the disease type. Willingness to pay for the QOL-enhancing scenarios was $60,000/QALY and did not differ by physicians’ specialty or disease.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that family physicians value life-prolonging and QOL-enhancing interventions roughly equally, while oncologists value interventions that extend survival more highly than those that improve only QOL. These findings may have important implications for coverage and reimbursement decisions of new technologies.