Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Oct;8(10):865-9, 869.e1-3.
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.018. Epub 2010 Jun 1.

A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening

Cesare Hassan et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Oct.

Abstract

Background & aims: A "resect and discard" policy has been proposed for diminutive polyps detected by screening colonoscopy, because hyperplastic and adenomatous polyps can be distinguished, in vivo, by using narrow-band imaging (NBI). We modeled the cost-effectiveness of this policy.

Methods: Markov modeling was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of universal pathology evaluations with a resect and discard policy for colonoscopy screening. In a resect and discard approach, diminutive lesions (≤5 mm), classified by endoscopy with high confidence, were not analyzed by a pathologist. Base case assumptions of an 84% rate of high-confidence classification, with a sensitivity and specificity for adenomas of 94% and 89%, respectively, were used. Census data were used to project outputs of the model onto the US population, assuming 23% as the current rate of adherence to a colonoscopy screening.

Results: With universal referral of resected polyps to pathology, colonoscopy screening costs an estimated $3222/person, with a gain of 51 days/person. Endoscopic polypectomy accounted for $179/person, of which $46/person was related to pathology examination. Adoption of a resect and discard policy for eligible diminutive polyps resulted in a savings of $25/person, without any meaningful effect on screening efficacy. Projected onto the US population, this approach would result in an undiscounted annual savings of $33 million. In the sensitivity analysis, the rate of high-confidence diagnosis and the accuracy for endoscopic polyp determination were the most meaningful variables.

Conclusions: In a simulation model, a resect and discard strategy for diminutive polyps detected by screening colonoscopy resulted in a substantial economic benefit without an impact on efficacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types