Screening for colorectal cancer: the cost to find an advanced adenoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cancer Care Ontario has recommended a program to screen for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Patients who test positive on FOBT will require further investigation. We examined the cost of finding an advanced adenoma in these patients using four different strategies. METHODS: Using decision analysis software (DATA 3.5, TreeAge Software, Boston, MA), we considered four strategies for evaluating patients referred for a positive FOBT: 1) flexible sigmoidoscopy to the splenic flexure, 2) flexible sigmoidoscopy with air contrast barium enema (ACBE), 3) virtual colonoscopy, and 4) colonoscopy. If an adenoma was found in any of the first three methods, colonoscopy and polypectomy were performed. An advanced adenoma was defined as a villous adenoma, tubular adenoma > or = 10 mm, high grade dysplasia, or cancer. Values for probabilities, test characteristics and costs ($CDN) were estimated from a MEDLINE literature review, local costs, and OHIP fee codes. Patients with adenomas identified as well as direct medical costs from a third party payer perspective were calculated. RESULTS: Assuming a probability of adenoma of 16.9%, the cost for each strategy (compared to no investigation) was as follows: flexible sigmoidoscopy to the splenic flexure, $226; flexible sigmoidoscopy with ACBE, $424; virtual colonoscopy, $597; and colonoscopy, $387. The cost to clear a patient of adenoma(s) was $1,930, $2,840, $3,681, and $2,290, respectively. Despite being most cost-effective, the sigmoidoscopy strategy was predicted to detect 69% of cases of advanced adenomas. The radiological strategies would be less expensive if ACBE cost less than $115 or virtual colonoscopy cost less than $291. The colonoscopy strategy was more cost-effective if the probability of an adenoma was > or = 33.5%. When the incremental costs were considered to investigate 1000 patients, virtual colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy with ACBE were both more costly then colonoscopy, and neither detected as many cases of advanced adenomas. CONCLUSION: Improved access to colonoscopy seems to be the preferred approach to deal with increased referrals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".