Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 1953–1962 | Cite as

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of a urine metabolomics test vs. alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies

  • Scott Barichello
  • Lu DengEmail author
  • Kathleen P. Ismond
  • Dustin E. Loomes
  • Erin M. Kirwin
  • Haili Wang
  • David Chang
  • Lawrence W. Svenson
  • Nguyen Xuan Thanh
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Despite the success of provincial screening programs, colorectal cancer (CRC) is still the third most common cancer in Canada and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Fecal-based tests, such as fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), form the foundation of the provincial CRC screening programs in Canada. However, those tests have low sensitivity for CRC precursors, adenomatous polyps and have low adherence. This study evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new urine metabolomic-based test (UMT) that detects adenomatous polyps and CRC.

Methods

A Markov model was designed using data from the literature and provincial healthcare databases for Canadian at average risk for CRC; calibration was performed against statistics data. Screening strategies included the following: FOBT every year, FIT every year, colonoscopy every 10 years, and UMT every year. The costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each strategy were estimated and compared.

Results

Compared with no screening, a UMT strategy reduced CRC mortality by 49.9% and gained 0.15 life years per person at $42,325/life year gained in the base case analysis. FOBT reduced CRC mortality by 14.9% and gained 0.04 life years per person at $25,011/life year gained. FIT reduced CRC mortality by 35.8% and gained 0.11 life years per person at $25,500/life year while colonoscopy reduced CRC mortality by 24.7% and gained 0.08 life years per person at $50,875/life year.

Conclusions

A UMT strategy might be a cost-effective strategy when used in programmatic CRC screening programs.

Keywords

PolypDx Markov model Early detection of cancer QALY ICER 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Richard N. Fedorak, Carole Chambers, and Grace Wong (Pharmacy Cancer Services, Alberta Health Services) for their contribution to this manuscript.

Author contributions

SB, LD, and DEL were responsible for the study conceptualization and design; SB, LD, KPI, DEL, EMK, HW, and LSW acquired and analyzed the data; statistical analyses of economic data were done by EMK and LSW; TXN and LD built the model and conducted formal analysis. All authors contributed to data interpretation and validation at each project stage. SB and LD led the preparation of the manuscript and all authors participated in its critical review and revision for important intellectual content. All authors approved the manuscript version for publishing and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work presented therein. Lastly, DC, LSW, and TXN acquired resources and provided supervision.

Funding information

This study was funded by research grants from the Centre of Excellence for Gastrointestinal Inflammation and Immunity Research (CEGIIR), University of Alberta, Canada and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA (grant number 1UG3EB024965-01).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

HW is cofounder and shareholder in Metabolomics Technologies Inc., while LD, KPI, and DC are employees of Metabolomics Technologies Inc.

Supplementary material

384_2019_3419_MOESM1_ESM.docx (151 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 150 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F (2017) Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut 66(4):683PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ó Céilleachair AJ, Hanly P, Skally M, O’Neill C, Fitzpatrick P, Kapur K et al (2013) Cost comparisons and methodological heterogeneity in cost-of-illness studies. Med Care 51(4):339–350PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanford SD, Zhao F, Salsman JM, Chang VT, Wagner LI, Fisch MJ (2014) Symptom burden among young adults with breast or colorectal cancer. Cancer 120(15):2255–2263PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stewart SL, Wike JM, Kato I, Lewis DR, Michaud F (2006) A population-based study of colorectal cancer histology in the United States, 1998–2001. Cancer 107(S5):1128–1141PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rashtak S, Rego R, Sweetser SR, Sinicrope FA (2017) Sessile serrated polyps and colon cancer prevention. Cancer Prev Res 10(5):270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68(1):7–30PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, Eheman C, Zauber AG, Anderson RN, Jemal A, Schymura MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Seeff LC, van Ballegooijen M, Goede SL, Ries LA (2010) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116(3):544–573PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Hankey BF et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366(8):687–696PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leddin DJ, Enns R, Hilsden R, Plourde V, Rabeneck L, Sadowski DC, Signh H (2010) Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position statement on screening individuals at average risk for developing colorectal cancer: 2010. Can J Gastroenterol 24(12):705–714PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zubero MB, Arana-Arri E, Pijoan JI, Portillo I, Idigoras I, Lopez-Urrutia A et al (2014) Population-based colorectal cancer screening: comparison of two fecal occult blood test. Front Pharmacol 4:175PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barzi A, Lenz HJ, Quinn DI, Sadeghi S (2017) Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for colorectal cancer. Cancer 123(9):1516–1527PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Levin TR, Lavin P, Lidgard GP, Ahlquist DA, Berger BM (2014) Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 370(14):1287–1297PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Roon AH, Wilschut JA, Hol L, van Ballegooijen M, Reijerink JC, ‘t Mannetje H et al (2011) Diagnostic yield improves with collection of 2 samples in fecal immunochemical test screening without affecting attendance. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(4):333–339PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, Cubiella J, Salas D, Lanas A, Andreu M, Carballo F, Morillas JD, Hernández C, Jover R, Montalvo I, Arenas J, Laredo E, Hernández V, Iglesias F, Cid E, Zubizarreta R, Sala T, Ponce M, Andrés M, Teruel G, Peris A, Roncales MP, Polo-Tomás M, Bessa X, Ferrer-Armengou O, Grau J, Serradesanferm A, Ono A, Cruzado J, Pérez-Riquelme F, Alonso-Abreu I, de la Vega-Prieto M, Reyes-Melian JM, Cacho G, Díaz-Tasende J, Herreros-de-Tejada A, Poves C, Santander C, González-Navarro A, COLONPREV Study Investigators (2012) Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 366(8):697–706PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Roon AH, Goede SL, van Ballegooijen M, van Vuuren AJ, Looman CW, Biermann K, Reijerink JC, Mannetje H', van der Togt A, Habbema JD, van Leerdam M, Kuipers EJ (2013) Random comparison of repeated faecal immunochemical testing at different intervals for population-based colorectal cancer screening. Gut 62(3):409–415PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh H, Bernstein CN, Samadder JN, Ahmed R (2015) Screening rates for colorectal cancer in Canada: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ open 3(2):E149–E157PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singal AG, Corley DA, Kamineni A, Garcia M, Zheng Y, Doria-Rose PV, Quinn VP, Jensen CD, Chubak J, Tiro J, Doubeni CA, Ghai NR, Skinner CS, Wernli K, Halm EA (2018) Patterns and predictors of repeat fecal immunochemical and occult blood test screening in four large health care systems in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 113(5):746–754PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Major D, Bryant H, Delaney M, Fekete S, Gentile L, Harrison M, Mai V, Nicholson E, Taylor Y (2013) Colorectal cancer screening in Canada: results from the first round of screening for five provincial programs. Curr Oncol 20(5):252–257PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Solbak NM, Xu JY, Vena JE, Al Rajabi A, Vaseghi S, Whelan HK et al (2018) Patterns and predictors of adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations in Alberta’s Tomorrow Project participants stratified by risk. BMC Public Health 18(1):177PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Church J (2013) Complications of colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin N Am 42(3):639–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang H, Tso V, Wong C, Sadowski D, Fedorak RN (2014) Development and validation of a highly sensitive urine-based test to identify patients with colonic adenomatous polyps. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 5(3):e54-eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deng L, Chang D, Foshaug RR, Eisner R, Tso VK, Wishart DS, et al. (2017) Development and validation of a high-throughput mass spectrometry based urine metabolomic test for the detection of colonic adenomatous polyps. Metabolites 7(3)PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deng L, Fang H, Tso VK, Sun Y, Foshaug RR, Krahn SC, Zhang F, Yan Y, Xu H, Chang D, Zhang Y, Fedorak RN (2017) Clinical validation of a novel urine-based metabolomic test for the detection of colonic polyps on Chinese population. Int J Color Dis 32(5):741–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deng L, Ismond KP, Liu Z, Constable J., Wang H, Kingham PT, Chang D, Fedorak RN (2018) Urinary metabolomics to identify a unique biomarker panel for detecting colorectal cancer: a multicentre study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers PrevGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J (2002) Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 137(2):96PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM (2001) Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 135(9):769–781PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Song K, Fendrick AM, Ladabaum U (2004) Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis. Gastroenterology 126(5):1270–1279PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Telford JJ, Levy AR, Sambrook JC, Zou D, Enns RA (2010) The cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer. CMAJ 182(12):1307–1313PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ladabaum U, Song K (2005) Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand. Gastroenterology 129(4):1151–1162PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sharaf RN, Ladabaum U (2013) Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies. Am J Gastroenterol 108(1):120–132PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ladabaum U, Allen J, Wandell M, Ramsey S (2013) Colorectal cancer screening with blood-based biomarkers: cost-effectiveness of methylated septin 9 DNA versus current strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 22(9):1567–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ladabaum U, Mannalithara A (2016) Comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a multitarget stool DNA test to screen for colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 151(3):427–39 e6PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ouakrim DA, Boussioutas A, Lockett T, Hopper JL, Jenkins MA. (2014) Cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia. BMC Cancer 14(1)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, Naber SK, Doria-Rose VP, Pabiniak C et al (2016) Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama 315(23):2595–2609PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brenner H, Kretschmann J, Stock C, Hoffmeister M (2016) Expected long-term impact of screening endoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence: a modelling study. Oncotarget 7(30):48168–48179PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prakash MK, Lang B, Heinrich H, Valli PV, Bauerfeind P, Sonnenberg A et al (2017) CMOST: an open-source framework for the microsimulation of colorectal cancer screening strategies. BMC Med inform Decis Making 17(1):80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen C, Stock C, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H (2018) Public health impact of colonoscopy use on colorectal cancer mortality in Germany and the United States. Gastrointest Endosc 87(1):213–21.e2PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, Ahnen DJ, Meester RGS, Barzi A et al (2017) Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67(3):177–193PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    (2016) Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer in primary care. Can Med Assoc J 188(5):340–8Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T et al (2017) Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 112:1016PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tinmouth J, Vella ET, Baxter NN, Dubé C et al (2016) Colorectal cancer screening in average risk populations: evidence summary. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oboler SK, Prochazka AV, Gonzales R, Xu S, Anderson RJ (2002) Public expectations and attitudes for annual physical examinations and testing. Ann Intern Med 136(9):652–659PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Anabtawi A, Mathew LM (2013) Improving compliance with screening of diabetic patients for microalbuminuria in primary care practice. ISRN Endocrinol 2013:893913PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    (2017) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. CADTH, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    (2017) Surveillance & Reporting: The 2017 report on Cancer Statistics in Alberta. EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC (2014) Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 371(9):796–797PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, Snover DC, Bradley GM, Schuman LM, Ederer F (1993) Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 328(19):1365–1371PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP, Weiss NS (1992) A case–control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 326(10):653–657PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jorgensen OD (2002) A randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer using faecal occult blood testing: results after 13 years and seven biennial screening rounds. Gut 50(1):29–32PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Barichello
    • 1
  • Lu Deng
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kathleen P. Ismond
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dustin E. Loomes
    • 1
  • Erin M. Kirwin
    • 3
  • Haili Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Chang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lawrence W. Svenson
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Nguyen Xuan Thanh
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Metabolomic Technologies Inc.EdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Government of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Cumming School of MedicineUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  5. 5.School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations