TY - JOUR
T1 - An observational study to compare the utilisation of computed tomography colonography with optical colonoscopy as the first diagnostic imaging tool in patients with suspected colorectal cancer
AU - Rua, T.
AU - Watson, H.
AU - Malhotra, B.
AU - Turville, J.
AU - Razavi, R.
AU - Peacock, J. L.
AU - McCrone, P.
AU - Goh, V.
AU - Shearer, J.
AU - Griffin, N.
PY - 2020/9
Y1 - 2020/9
N2 - Aim: To evaluate the clinical and cost implications of using computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) as the initial colonic investigation in patients with low-to-intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Materials and methods: A non-randomised, prospective single-centre study recruited 180 participants to compare the cost implications of two clinical pathways used in the diagnosis of low-to-intermediate risk of CRC that differ in the initial diagnostic test, either CTC or OC. Costs were compared using generalised linear models (GLM) and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D-5L) to estimate cost-effectiveness at 6 months post-recruitment. Secondary outcomes assessed access to care and patient satisfaction. Results: Mean (SD, n) cost at 6 months post-recruitment per participant was £991 (£316, n=105) for the OC group and £645 (£607, n=68) for the CTC group, leading to an estimated cost difference of –£370 (95% CI: –£554, –£185, p<0.001). Assuming a £20,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold, there was a 91.4% probability of CTC being cost-effective at month 6. The utilisation of CTC led to improved access to care, with a shorter mean time from referral from primary care to results (6.3 days difference, p=0.005). No differences in patient satisfaction were detected between both groups. Conclusion: The utilisation of CTC as the first-line investigation for patients with low-to-intermediate risk of CRC has the potential to release OC capacity, of pivotal importance for patients more likely to benefit from an invasive diagnostic approach.
AB - Aim: To evaluate the clinical and cost implications of using computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) as the initial colonic investigation in patients with low-to-intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Materials and methods: A non-randomised, prospective single-centre study recruited 180 participants to compare the cost implications of two clinical pathways used in the diagnosis of low-to-intermediate risk of CRC that differ in the initial diagnostic test, either CTC or OC. Costs were compared using generalised linear models (GLM) and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D-5L) to estimate cost-effectiveness at 6 months post-recruitment. Secondary outcomes assessed access to care and patient satisfaction. Results: Mean (SD, n) cost at 6 months post-recruitment per participant was £991 (£316, n=105) for the OC group and £645 (£607, n=68) for the CTC group, leading to an estimated cost difference of –£370 (95% CI: –£554, –£185, p<0.001). Assuming a £20,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold, there was a 91.4% probability of CTC being cost-effective at month 6. The utilisation of CTC led to improved access to care, with a shorter mean time from referral from primary care to results (6.3 days difference, p=0.005). No differences in patient satisfaction were detected between both groups. Conclusion: The utilisation of CTC as the first-line investigation for patients with low-to-intermediate risk of CRC has the potential to release OC capacity, of pivotal importance for patients more likely to benefit from an invasive diagnostic approach.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085647381&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.crad.2020.04.014
DO - 10.1016/j.crad.2020.04.014
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85085647381
SN - 0009-9260
VL - 75
SP - 712.e23-712.e31
JO - Clinical Radiology
JF - Clinical Radiology
IS - 9
ER -