View Item 

Show simple item record

The Cost-Effectiveness of CT Colonography in Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia

dc.contributor.authorVijan, Sandeepen_US
dc.contributor.authorHwang, Inkuen_US
dc.contributor.authorInadomi, John M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, Roy K. H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorChoi, J. Richarden_US
dc.contributor.authorNapierkowski, Johnen_US
dc.contributor.authorKoff, Jonathan M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPickhardt, Perry J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T18:20:06Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T18:20:06Z
dc.date.issued2007-02en_US
dc.identifier.citationVijan, Sandeep; Hwang, Inku; Inadomi, John; Wong, Roy K.H.; Choi, J. Richard; Napierkowski, John; Koff, Jonathan M.; Pickhardt, Perry J. (2007). "The Cost-Effectiveness of CT Colonography in Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia." The American Journal of Gastroenterology 102(2): 380-390. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/71544>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0002-9270en_US
dc.identifier.issn1572-0241en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/71544
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=17156139&dopt=citationen_US
dc.format.extent218772 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Incen_US
dc.rights2007 by Am. Coll. of Gastroenterologyen_US
dc.titleThe Cost-Effectiveness of CT Colonography in Screening for Colorectal Neoplasiaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumVeterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Internal Medicine, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DCen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Californiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Radiology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DCen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Radiology, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Marylanden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsinen_US
dc.identifier.pmid17156139en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71544/1/j.1572-0241.2006.00970.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00970.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe American Journal of Gastroenterologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceParker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, et al. Cancer statistics, 1996. CA Cancer J Clin 1996; 46: 5 – 27.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRies LAG, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1996. 99. Bethesda, MD, National Cancer Institute.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorson BC. The evolution of colorectal carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1984; 35: 425 – 31.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMuto T, Bussey HJR, Morson BC. The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 1975; 36: 2251 – 70.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAtkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 658 – 62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale—Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 544 – 60.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCram P, Inadomi J, Cowen ME, et al. The impact of a healthy celebrity spokesperson on preventive health behavior: The Katie couric effect. Arch Int Med 2003; 163: 1601 – 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVernon SW. Participation in colorectal cancer screening: A review. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 1406 – 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeeff L, Nadel M, Blackman D, Pollack LA. Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged 50 years and older–United States, 2001. MMWR 2003; 52: 193 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHynam KA, Hart AR, Gay SP, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: reasons for refusal of faecal occult blood testing in a general practice in England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995; 49: 84 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ 3rd. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 3186 – 94.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: Computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 635 – 50.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVijan S, Hwang EW, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance. Am J Med 2001; 111: 593 – 601.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnson DA, Gurney MS, Volpe RJ, et al. A prospective study of the prevalence of colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with an age-related risk. Am J Gastroenterol 1990; 85: 969 – 74.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDiSario JA, Foutch PG, Mai HD, et al. Prevalence and malignant potential of colorectal polyps in asymptomatic, average-risk men. Am J Gastroenterol 1991; 86: 941 – 45.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRickert RR, Auerback O, Garfinkel L, et al. Adenomatous lesions of the large bowel: An autopsy survey. Cancer 1979; 43: 1847 – 57.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlatt LJ. Polyps of the colon and rectum: Incidence and distribution. Dis Colon Rectum 1961; 4: 277 – 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArminski TC, McLean W. Incidence and distribution of adenomatous polyps of the colon and rectum based on 1,000 autopsy examinations. Dis Colon Rectum 1964; 7: 249 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMyers M, Ries LAG. Cancer patient survival rates: SEER program results for 10 years of follow-up. CA Cancer J Clin 1989; 39: 21 – 32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhlquist DA, Wieand HS, Moertell CG, et al. Accuracy of fecal occult blood screening for colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 1993; 269: 1262 – 67.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMandel JS, Bond JH, Bradley M, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictivity of the hemoccult test in screening for colorectal cancers. Gastroenterology 1989; 97: 597 – 600.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMacrae FA, St. John DJB. Relationship between patterns of bleeding with hemoccult sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancers or adenomas. Gastroenterology 1982; 82: 891 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCrowley ML, Feeman LD, Mottet MD, et al. Sensitivity of guaiac-impregnated cards for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. J Clin Gastroenterol 1983; 5: 127 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRex DK, Lehman GA, Hawes RH, et al. Screening colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk persons with negative fecal occult blood tests. Gastroenterology 1991; 100: 64 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAllison JE, Feldman R, Tekawa IS. Hemoccult screening in detecting colorectal neoplasm: Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112: 328 – 33.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNiv Y, Sperber AD. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of fecal occult blood testing (hemoccult II) for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a prospective study with total colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90: 1974 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEddy DM. Screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 373 – 84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFoutch PG, Mai H, Pardy K, et al. Flexible sigmoidoscopy may be ineffective for secondary prevention of colorectal cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk men. Dig Dis Sci 1991; 36: 924 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLieberman DA, Smith FW. Screening for colon malignancy with colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1991; 86: 946 – 51.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, et al. Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 125 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRex DK. Colonoscopy. a review of its yield for cancers and adenomas by indication. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90: 353 – 65.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCastiglione G, Mazzotta A, Grazzini G. Sensitivity of screening sigmoidoscopy for proximal colorectal tumours (letter). Lancet 1995; 345: 726 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZarchy TM, Ershoff D. Do characteristics of adenomas on flexible sigmoidoscopy predict advanced lesions on baseline colonoscopy? Gastroenterology 1994; 106: 1501 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAchkar E, Carey W. Small polyps found during fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy in asymptomatic patients. Ann Intern Med 1988; 109: 880 – 3.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHabr-Gama A, Waye JD. Complications and hazards of gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Surg 1989; 13: 193 – 201.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMacrae FA, Tan KG, Williams CB. Towards safer colonoscopy: A report on the complications of 5000 diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopies. Gut 1983; 24: 376 – 83.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWaye JD, Lewis BS, Yessayan S. Colonoscopy: A prospective report of complications. J Clin Gastroenterol 1992; 15: 347 – 51.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEddy DM, Nugent FW, Eddy JF, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in a high-risk population. Gastroenterology 1987; 92: 682 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference41.  Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Medicare Program: Physician Fee Schedule Update for Calendar Year 2003. Federal Register 2003; 68: 9567 – 80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference42.  Department of Health and Human Services HCFA. Medicare program; revisions to payment policies and five-year review of and adjustments to the relative value units under the physician fee schedule for calendar year 2000 and physician volume performance standard rates of increase for federal fiscal year 1999, notice. Federal Register 1999; 64: 59379 – 428.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRogge JD, Elmore MF, Mahoney SJ, et al. Low-cost, office-based, screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: 1775 – 80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWagner JL, Tunis S, Brown M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. In: Young GP, Rozen P, Levin B, eds. Prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1996. pp. 321 – 41.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFireman BH, Quesenberry CP, Somkin CP, et al. Cost of care for cancer in a health maintenance organization. Helath Care Financing Rev 1997; 18: 51 – 76.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaker MS, Kessler LG, Smucker RC. Site-Specific Treatment Costs for Cancer: An Analysis of the Medicare Continuous History Sample File. In: Scheffler, RM, Andrews NC, eds. Cancer Care and Costs: DRGs and Beyond. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press, 1989. pp. 127 – 38.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePignone M, Russell L, and Wagner J. Economic models of colorectal cancer screening in average risk adults. 2005. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaplin SH, Barlow W, Urban N, et al. Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 417 – 26.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA 2000; 284: 1954 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoeve F, Brown ML, Boer R, et al. Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: a cost-saving analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 557 – 63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhandker RK, Dulski JD, Kilpatrick JB, et al. A decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 799 – 810.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 573 – 84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference53.  National Center for Health Statistics. Vital statistics of the United States, 1991, vol II, mortality, part B. Washington, DC: Public Health Service, 1995.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEide TJ. Remnants of adenomas in colorectal carcinomas. Cancer 1983; 51: 1866 – 72.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 594 – 642.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSelby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP, et al. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 653 – 57.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCauffman JG, Hara JH, Rasgon IM, et al. Flexible sigmoidoscopy in asymptomatic patients with negative fecal occult blood tests. J Fam Pract 1992; 34: 281 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1365 – 71.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MHE, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996; 348: 1472 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996; 348: 1467 – 71.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSquillace S, Berggreen P, Jaffe P, et al. A normal initial colonoscopy after age 50 does not predict a polyp-free status for life. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: 1156 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRex DK, Cummings OW, Helper DJ, et al. 5-year incidence of adenomas after negative colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk persons. Gastroenterology 1996; 111: 1178 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRex DK, Lehman GA, Ulbright TM, et al. The yield of a second screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in average- risk persons after one negative examination. Gastroenterology 1994; 106: 593 – 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNoshirwani KC, van Stolk RU, Rybicki LA, et al. Adenoma size and number are predictive of adenoma recurrence: Implications for surveillance endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 433 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinawer SJ, Zauber AG, O'Brien MJ, et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 901 – 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2191 – 200.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCritchfield GC, Willard KE. Probabilistic analysis of decision trees using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making 1986; 6: 85 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceManning WG, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC. Reflecting uncertainty in Cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. pp. 247 – 75.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLaupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 332 – 42.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLadabaum U, Song K, Fendrick AM. Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy: when, at what cost, and with what national impact? Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 554 – 63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRansohoff DF. Virtual colonoscopy–What it can do vs. what it will do. JAMA 2004; 291: 1772 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): A multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004; 291: 1713 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005; 365: 305 – 11.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004; 232: 735 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVijan S, Inadomi J, Hayward RA, et al. Projections of demand and capacity for colonoscopy related to increasing rates of colorectal cancer screening in the United States. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 507 – 15.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKolata G. 50 and ready for Colonoscopy? doctors say wait is often long. A(1), 1. 2003. New York, NY, New York Times.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrown ML, Klabunde CN, Mysliwiec P. Current capacity for endoscopic colorectal cancer screening in the United States: Data from the National Cancer Institute survey of colorectal cancer screening practices. Am J Med 2003; 115: 129 – 33.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1572-0241.2006.00970.x.pdf
Size:
213.6KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.