FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1986320199> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1986320199 endingPage "1342" @default.
• W1986320199 startingPage "1339" @default.
• W1986320199 abstract "The importance of colorectal cancer screening is becoming more widely recognized by the public and by medical and public health communities. Screening rates are beginning to increase,1Centers for Disease Control and PreventionColorectal cancer test use among persons aged ≥50 years–United States, 2001.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003; 52: 193-196Google Scholar, 2Seeff L.C. Nadel M.R. Klabunde C. Thompson T. Shapiro J.A. Vernon S.W. Coates R.J. Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult US population.Cancer. 2004; 100: 2093-2103Google Scholar and a growing number of organizations, including local medical communities, state health departments, and federal agencies are in various stages of planning for organized and widespread colorectal cancer screening programs. The ability to anticipate the clinical and economic outcomes of widespread screening, as well as its consequences for health care delivery, would greatly benefit those involved in the planning such programs. In particular, issues of cost and capacity are critical to many planning efforts. In this issue of Gastroenterology, Ladabaum and Song3Ladabaum U. Song K. Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand.Gastroenterology. 2005; 129: 1151-1163Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (132) Google Scholar provide information that might be used in such a planning process. Using a natural history colorectal cancer model, with various screening scenarios superimposed over the model, they predicted a wide range of outcomes that might result from widespread colorectal cancer screening of the US population. They used model outcomes to try to answer some overarching questions: How will widespread screening affect colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates? How will it affect overall national colorectal cancer-related health care costs? Will currently estimated numbers of endoscopic procedures performed be enough to meet the demand generated by sustained widespread screening? The authors began with a previously described4Song K. Fendrick A.M. Ladabaum U. Fecal DNA testing compared to conventional colorectal cancer screening methods a decision analysis.Gastroenterology. 2004; 126: 1270-1279Google Scholar, 5Ladabaum U. Song K. Fendrick A.M. Colorectal neoplasia screening with virtual colonoscopy when, at what cost, and with what national impact?.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004; 2: 554-563Google Scholar, 6Ladabaum U. Chopra C.L. Huang G. Scheiman J.M. Chernew M.E. Fendrick A.M. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis.Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135: 769-781Google Scholar, 7Ladabaum U. Scheiman J.M. Fendrick A.M. Potential effect of cyclooxgenase-2-specific inhibitors on the prevention of colorectal cancer a cost effectiveness analysis.Am J Med. 2003; 114: 546-554Google Scholar model of the natural history of colorectal cancer that predicts the progression through colorectal cancer health states in the absence of screening over a 50-year period (from age 50 to 100 or death). They then superimposed screening over this natural history model, for persons 50–80, with different screening strategies, using “conventional” screening tests–annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, FOBT and sigmoidoscopy combined, and colonoscopy every 10 years—and “emerging strategies”—fecal DNA every 5 years and CT-colonography (virtual colonoscopy) every 10 years. Follow-up and surveillance colonoscopies were accounted for in the model. They assumed a cost for each of the screening tests, an average cost for colonoscopy complications, and took a societal perspective. Where test costs for the newer tests were unknown, they referred to the literature.3Ladabaum U. Song K. Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand.Gastroenterology. 2005; 129: 1151-1163Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (132) Google Scholar, 8Syngal S. Chung D. Willet C. Schoetz D. Schroy P. Stoffel E. Jagadeesh D. Morel K. Ross M. The loss of stool DNA mutation abnormalities in colorectal neoplasia after treatment.Gastroenterology. 2003; 124: A5Google Scholar Model outcomes included the number of colorectal cancers detected by stage, death by cause, discounted, and undiscounted average life-years, the cost per person, and the number and type of tests performed in each screening test strategy. They assumed a compliance rate of 75% for each screening strategy and a steady state for the population growth and age distribution. They compared numbers of needed tests predicted to recently estimated endoscopic procedural utilization rates9Seeff L.C. Richards T.B. Shapiro J.A. Nadel M.R. Manninen D.L. Given L.S. Dong F.B. Winges L.D. McKenna M.T. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity.Gastroenterology. 2004; 127: 1670-1677Google Scholar to explore whether supply could meet demand in the steady state. Clinical and cost outcomes from the model, in both a natural history setting and in various screening settings, were projected and compared. Disease projections showed a decrease in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality similar to what has been shown in published case control and randomized trials.10Mandel J.S. Church T.R. Bond J.H. Ederer F. Geisser M.S. Mongin S.J. Snover D.C. Schuman L.M. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer.N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 1603-1607Google Scholar, 11Mandel J.S. Bond J.H. Church T.R. et al.Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study.N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 1365-1371Google Scholar, 12Selby J.V. Friedman G.D. Quesenberry Jr, C.P. Weiss N.S. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer.N Engl J Med. 1992; 326: 653-657Google Scholar, 13Newcomb P.A. Norfleet R.G. Storer B.E. Surawicz T.S. Marcus P.M. Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality.J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992; 84: 1572-1575Google Scholar, 14Hardcastle J.D. Chamberlain J.O. Robinson M.H. Moss S.M. Amar S.S. Balfour T.W. James P.D. Mangham C.M. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.Lancet. 1996; 348: 1472-1477Google Scholar, 15Kronborg O. Fenger C. Olsen J. Jorgensen O.D. Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test.Lancet. 1996; 348: 1467-1471Google Scholar Cost projections, with assumed screening take-up rate of 75%, showed that for any of the screening tests used, total colorectal cancer-related expenditures for the screened population were higher than those expenditures for the unscreened population, because any savings in colorectal cancer treatment costs for the screened population caused by early detection were offset by screening costs. Numbers of tests needed in each screening scenario were estimated and compared with numbers of tests being performed nationally as recently reported,9Seeff L.C. Richards T.B. Shapiro J.A. Nadel M.R. Manninen D.L. Given L.S. Dong F.B. Winges L.D. McKenna M.T. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity.Gastroenterology. 2004; 127: 1670-1677Google Scholar, 16Seeff L.C. Manninen D. Dong F. Chattapodhyay S.K. Nadel M.R. Tangka F. Molinari N. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?.Gastroenterology. 2004; 127: 1661-1669Google Scholar to try to estimate the endoscopic capacity to sustain screening over the life of the model. Results showed that the current colonoscopic capacity would be able to sustain population screening over time. The authors’ stated goal was to provide information for use regionally and nationally to help guide policy regarding colorectal cancer screening. Colorectal cancer screening is an extremely dynamic area, and it may therefore be particularly difficult to make projections regarding colorectal cancer screening outcomes based solely on modeling efforts. Issues like which of the currently recommended screening tests, if any, will become most commonly recommended; how well the newer screening tests will be received by the public and health care providers; test costs; and reimbursement rates are all still in flux. Additionally, there are inherent limitations in using any model to predict outcomes and guide public health planning since a model relies completely on the assumptions on which it is designed; if those assumptions are inaccurate, the model conclusions may not be robust. Despite these general modeling limitations, this study asks the relevant questions being considered by public health planners, clinicians, and policy makers, in particular regarding the overall costs and endoscopic capacity to provide widespread screening. However, full answers may not yet be available, in part because of the effect of model assumptions on results, and in part because these issues are still too uncertain. The handling of cost and capacity in this model, and their potential to guide planning, deserve particular attention. In terms of cost, a key conclusion is that nationally, colorectal cancer screening is unlikely to be cost-savings, and treatment costs are estimated in this study to be between $3.6–$8.0 billion, roughly in line with other analyses, when adjusted for inflation.17Schrag D. Weeks J. Costs and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer prevention and therapy.Semin Oncol. 1999; 26: 561-568Google Scholar However, since some cost projections were based on assumed test costs and may have been overestimates when compared with national reimbursement rates (particularly FOBT costs18Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. HCPC: Step 1. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/physicians/mpfsapp/step1.asp Accessed August 18, 2005Google Scholar, 19Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS files for download for Medicare payment systems. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/providers/pufdownload/default.asp#labfee Accessed August 18, 2005Google Scholar), the model may have projected lower cost savings than could be realized. FOBT-based programs remain appealing in many settings because of the low cost of FOBT, as well as ready test availability and the strength of evidence that supports its effectiveness; FOBT is 1 of 4 screening tests currently recommended by national organizations.20U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale. July 2002. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/colorectal/colorr.htm Accessed August 24, 2005.Google Scholar, 21Winawer S.J. Fletcher R.H. Rex D. et al.Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance clinical guidelines and rationale—updated based on new evidence.Gastroenterology. 2003; 124: 544-560Google Scholar, 22Smith R.A. von Eschenbach A.C. Wender R. et al.American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers.CA Cancer J Clin. 2001; 51: 38-75Google Scholar Another assumption that may have influenced cost outcomes is that this model assumed a steady population growth and age distribution. In fact, the US population >50 is growing rapidly. From 1990 to 2000, the population in this age group grew at nearly twice the rate of the population under age 50 years (20.6% versus 10.6%),23U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 summary file 1; 1990 census population, general population characteristics, United States (1990 CP-1-1), a trend expected to continue as the population ages and life expectancies increase.Google Scholar a trend expected to continue as the population ages and life expectancies increase.24Day J. Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin 1995 to 2050, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P25-1130. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC1996Google Scholar Using a static population growth rate and age distribution, and a high screening take-up rate of 75%, the analysis may have underestimated colorectal cancer disease burden and cost. If higher numbers of cancers were detected than predicted in this model, subsequent treatment costs might then increase. Ladabaum and Song3Ladabaum U. Song K. Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand.Gastroenterology. 2005; 129: 1151-1163Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (132) Google Scholar showed that widespread colorectal cancer screening may not be cost-saving to society as a whole, but from a planning perspective, it might be useful to consider this issue by health care sector, since there is an unequal cost impact to different sectors. Costs to private and other pre-Medicare payers may increase with widespread screening and early detection, while Medicare may save money if 50–64 year olds are screened and treated before becoming eligible for Medicare. As local communities continue to partner with these different health care sectors and plan for how they will allocate costs for colorectal cancer screening and project long-term expenditures, they may consider this unequal cost burden by the different sectors as they seek ways to more widely cover screening. The conclusion that current colonoscopic capacity may be sufficient to support widespread screening also needs to be examined. In contrast, a recent study, which did not look at screening in a steady state, suggested that endoscopy resources would be limited in providing for immediate screening of the unscreened US population.9Seeff L.C. Richards T.B. Shapiro J.A. Nadel M.R. Manninen D.L. Given L.S. Dong F.B. Winges L.D. McKenna M.T. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity.Gastroenterology. 2004; 127: 1670-1677Google Scholar, 16Seeff L.C. Manninen D. Dong F. Chattapodhyay S.K. Nadel M.R. Tangka F. Molinari N. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?.Gastroenterology. 2004; 127: 1661-1669Google Scholar The CDC is in the process of trying to describe the national capacity to screen for colorectal cancer, given that we are not yet in a “steady state” but rather are trying to provide “catch-up screening” to a large segment of the population that has not received any screening. As a first step in trying to understand capacity, we estimated numbers of endoscopic tests being performed for colorectal cancer screening in a single year,16Seeff L.C. Manninen D. Dong F. Chattapodhyay S.K. Nadel M.R. Tangka F. Molinari N. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?.Gastroenterology. 2004; 127: 1661-1669Google Scholar and then used a static forecasting model to estimate the number of unscreened persons at a single point in time.16Seeff L.C. Manninen D. Dong F. Chattapodhyay S.K. Nadel M.R. Tangka F. Molinari N. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?.Gastroenterology. 2004; 127: 1661-1669Google Scholar We compared currently available volumes to test need under a series of scenarios, to measure the capacity to provide “catch-up” screening to the unscreened. There was sufficient immediate endoscopic capacity if widespread screening was conducted with FOBT, using colonoscopy only for follow-up of positive FOBTs, but insufficient capacity to provide screening colonoscopy to all unscreened within a year. In order to provide primary endoscopic screening with resources immediately available, screening services would need to be provided over an extended period of time, between 5–10 years. This amount of time may well be acceptable, but each planning organization would need to decide individually, based in part on local resources. This was only the initial step in describing the national capacity picture. Our next step is assessing the capacity to sustain screening over a 10-year period of time. Addressing dynamic features such as the rate and distribution of growth of the population 50 years and older, compliance with colorectal cancer screening and uptake, the number of follow-up diagnostic tests and re-screens needed over time should provide a better estimate of screening capacity over time. While it is possible that this kind of analysis may show that colonoscopy capacity will be sufficient to sustain screening over time, we do not yet know this. Repeat estimates of endoscopic utilization will provide the ability to estimate how utilization will continue to compare with need. One critical unknown addressed by Ladabaum and Song3Ladabaum U. Song K. Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand.Gastroenterology. 2005; 129: 1151-1163Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (132) Google Scholar is how newer screening tests will fold into the mix of screening test options. That remains a question that will have to unfold over time, and will depend on further evidence about their effectiveness, patient acceptance, and cost. The issue of capacity to sustain widespread screening over time necessarily cannot be fully understood until these issues have evolved over time. Ultimately, as the authors suggest, real-world data is needed to truly understand the clinical cost and health delivery outcomes of widespread screening. Such data are beginning to accumulate, as opportunistic screening continues and as more examples of organized screening programs appear.25New York State Department of Health. New York State cancer services. Available at: http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/cancer/center/cancer_services.htm . Accessed August 19, 2005.Google Scholar, 26Palitz A.M. Selby J.V. Grossman S. Finkler L.J. Bevc M. Kehr C. Conell C.A. The Colon Cancer Prevention Program (CoCaP) rationale, implementation, and preliminary results.HMO Pract. 1997; 11: 5-12Google Scholar CDC has just funded 5 demonstration colorectal cancer screening programs to begin organized colorectal cancer screening in spring 2005.27U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO Access). Federal Register: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi. Accessed August 25, 2005.Google Scholar These community-based screening programs were given flexibility in program design and choice of test, including those recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force,20U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale. July 2002. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/colorectal/colorr.htm Accessed August 24, 2005.Google Scholar as well as fecal immunochemical testing, and among the various sites, chose to use a combination of screening tests to reach their populations. Clinical, cost, and programmatic outcomes will be closely followed and evaluated. With this variety in test choice and in health care setting, we will be able to observe and measure compliance rates and variation in test costs in a variety of settings and using a variety of tests, and we will be able to observe how measured capacity relates to the ability to sustain widespread screening. Each of the outcomes estimated in the modeling effort by Ladabaum will be measured throughout these demonstration screening programs, adding real world data to projections being generated through models. As organized screening continues to build, many of the issues raised in the model will need to be watched closely. Capacity will need to be built over time, and in some regions more than others. Costs will influence test choice, as will patient and physician preference and safety. With careful planning, measurement of the capacity and attention to test costs, it should be possible to design widespread cost-effective colorectal cancer screening programs that reduce colorectal cancer disease burden. Projected National Impact of Colorectal Cancer Screening on Clinical and Economic Outcomes and Health Services DemandGastroenterologyVol. 129Issue 4PreviewBackground & Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective and cost-effective, but the potential national impact of widespread screening is uncertain. It is controversial whether screening colonoscopy can be offered widely and how emerging tests may impact health services demand. Our aim was to produce integrated, comprehensive estimates of the impact of widespread screening on national clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand. Methods: We used a Markov model and census data to estimate the national consequences of screening 75% of the US population with conventional and emerging strategies. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W1986320199 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1986320199 creator A5013161689 @default.
• W1986320199 creator A5031077915 @default.
• W1986320199 date "2005-10-01" @default.
• W1986320199 modified "2023-10-04" @default.
• W1986320199 title "Can We Predict the Outcomes of National Colorectal Cancer Screening and Can Predictions Help Us Plan?" @default.
• W1986320199 cites W1974894197 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W1989235138 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W1990382580 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2000868807 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2014320166 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2014495259 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2015421910 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2021362203 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2036371678 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2046686567 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2077348225 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2082149095 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2097786984 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2118835794 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2140389521 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2145602937 @default.
• W1986320199 cites W2160535416 @default.
• W1986320199 doi "https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.08.048" @default.
• W1986320199 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16230085" @default.
• W1986320199 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1986320199 type Work @default.
• W1986320199 sameAs 1986320199 @default.
• W1986320199 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W1986320199 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1986320199 hasAuthorship W1986320199A5013161689 @default.
• W1986320199 hasAuthorship W1986320199A5031077915 @default.
• W1986320199 hasBestOaLocation W19863201991 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConcept C2776505523 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConcept C526805850 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConceptScore W1986320199C121608353 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConceptScore W1986320199C126322002 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConceptScore W1986320199C166957645 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConceptScore W1986320199C205649164 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConceptScore W1986320199C2776505523 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConceptScore W1986320199C41008148 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConceptScore W1986320199C526805850 @default.
• W1986320199 hasConceptScore W1986320199C71924100 @default.
• W1986320199 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1986320199 hasLocation W19863201991 @default.
• W1986320199 hasLocation W19863201992 @default.
• W1986320199 hasOpenAccess W1986320199 @default.
• W1986320199 hasPrimaryLocation W19863201991 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W2000479004 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W2055656665 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W2392730113 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W2409949902 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W2473759769 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W3003904233 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W3004259476 @default.
• W1986320199 hasRelatedWork W3039284339 @default.
• W1986320199 hasVolume "129" @default.
• W1986320199 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1986320199 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1986320199 magId "1986320199" @default.
• W1986320199 workType "article" @default.