Ozbay, A. Burak

Abstract Suboptimal adherence to guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance among high‐risk patients is a persistent problem with substantial detriment to patient outcomes. While patients cite cost as a barrier to surveillance receipt, the financial burden they experience due to surveillance has not been examined. We conducted a retrospective administrative claims study to assess HCC surveillance use and associated costs in a US cohort of insured patients without cirrhosis but with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, monitored in routine clinical practice. Of 6831 patients (1122 on antiviral treatment, 5709 untreated), only 39.3% and 51.3% had received any abdominal imaging after 6 and 12 months, respectively, and patients were up to date with HCC surveillance guidelines for only 28% of the follow‐up time. Completion of surveillance was substantially higher at 6 and 12 months among treated patients (51.7% and 69.6%, respectively) compared with untreated patients (36.9% and 47.6%, respectively) ( p < 0.001). In adjusted models, treated patients were more likely than untreated patients to receive surveillance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53–2.01, p < 0.001), and the proportion of those up to date with surveillance was 9.7% higher (95% CI 6.26–13.07, p < 0.001). Mean total and patient‐paid daily surveillance‐related costs ranged from $99 (ultrasound) to $334 (magnetic resonance imaging), and mean annual patient costs due to lost productivity for surveillance‐related outpatient visits ranged from $93 (using the federal minimum wage) to $321 (using the Bureau of Labor Statistics wage). Conclusion : Use of current HCC surveillance strategies was low across patients with HBV infection, and surveillance was associated with substantial patient financial burden. These data highlight an urgent need for accessible and easy‐to‐implement surveillance strategies with sufficient sensitivity and specificity for early HCC detection.

Abstract Commercial insurance covers a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer–screening test with no patient cost-sharing. Instituting a similar policy for Medicare beneficiaries may increase screening adherence and improve outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening was compared across adherence scenarios that assumed Medicare coinsurance status quo (20% for follow-up colonoscopy) or waived coinsurance. The CRC-AIM model simulated previously unscreened eligible Medicare beneficiaries undergoing stool-based colorectal cancer screening at age 65 for 10 years. Medicare costs, colorectal cancer cases, colorectal cancer–related deaths, life-years gained (LYG), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were estimated versus no screening. Scenario 1 (S1) assumed 20% coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy. Scenario 2 (S2) assumed waived coinsurance without adherence changes. Scenarios 3–7 (S3–S7) assumed that waiving coinsurance increased real-world stool-based screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence by 5% or 10%. Sensitivity analyses assumed 1%–4% increased adherence. Cost-effectiveness threshold was ≤$100,000/QALY. Waiving coinsurance without adherence changes (S2) did not affect outcomes versus S1. S3–S7 versus S1 over 10 years estimated up to 3.6 fewer colorectal cancer cases/1,000 individuals, up to 2.1 fewer colorectal cancer deaths, up to 20.7 more LYG, and had comparable total costs per-patient (≤$6,478 vs. $6,449, respectively) as reduced colorectal cancer medical costs offset increased screening and colonoscopy costs. In sensitivity analyses, any increase in adherence after waiving coinsurance was cost-effective and increased LYG. In simulated Medicare beneficiaries, waiving coinsurance for follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test improved outcomes and was cost-effective when assumed to modestly increase colorectal cancer screening and/or follow-up colonoscopy adherence. Prevention Relevance: Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test is necessary to complete the colorectal cancer-screening process. This analysis demonstrated that in a simulated Medicare population, waiving coinsurance for a follow-up colonoscopy improved estimated outcomes and was cost-effective when it was assumed that waiving the coinsurance modestly increased screening adherence. See related Spotlight, p. 641

10529 Background: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recommends covering blood-based biomarker tests with proposed minimum performance thresholds for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test every 3 years for average-risk, asymptomatic Medicare beneficiaries ages 50–85 years. A blood-based test is a non-invasive screening method to detect CRC but is limited by low sensitivity to detect adenomas. Using the CRC-AIM microsimulation model, predicted life-years gained (LYG) and CRC incidence and mortality reduction were compared between a blood-based test meeting the CMS minimum thresholds and stool-based screening tests (fecal immunochemical test [FIT], fecal occult blood test [FOBT], and multitarget stool DNA [mt-sDNA]). Methods: Outcomes of blood- and stool-based tests were simulated for average-risk individuals free of diagnosed CRC at age 40 and screened between ages 45–75 years per USPSTF recommendations. Per CMS proposed criteria, CRC sensitivity and specificity for a blood-based test were set at 74% and 90%, respectively, and adenoma sensitivity was set at 10%. Published adenoma and CRC sensitivity and specificity were used for each stool test. For the primary analysis, adherence was assumed to be 100%. For secondary analysis, adherence was set at 30–70%, in 10% increments. Outcomes were per 1000 individuals. Results: At 100% adherence, LYG was 229 for a blood test and ≥305 for stool tests, corresponding to at least 25% lower LYG for a blood test relative to all stool tests (Table). Absolute CRC incidence and mortality reductions were at least 19% and 18% lower, respectively, for a blood test vs all stool tests. Secondary analysis indicates that at identical adherence rates that are less than 100%, a blood test had lower LYG vs all stool tests (Table). When the adherence of any test was 50%–70%, a blood test resulted in at least 20% lower LYG vs any stool test, and absolute reductions in CRC incidence and mortality were at least 9% and 10% lower, respectively, vs any stool test. Conclusions: This model suggests that if blood-based CRC screening tests do not sufficiently detect advanced adenomas, clinical outcomes will be inferior to stool-based testing due to lack of cancer prevention. Further discovery efforts to identify blood-based markers associated with both invasive and preinvasive neoplasia are needed to address this deficiency. [Table: see text]

e13624 Background: Commercial insurance plans are required to cover, with no patient cost sharing, a follow-up colonoscopy (COL) after a positive stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test. Medicare beneficiaries may still be responsible for 20% coinsurance for a follow-up COL, posing a financial barrier to screening completion. Removing the coinsurance may increase screening adherence and improve outcomes. The estimated cost-effectiveness of stool-based CRC screening was compared among adherence scenarios that assumed the status quo (20% coinsurance for follow-up COL) or waived follow-up COL coinsurance. Methods: The CRC-AIM microsimulation model simulated US Medicare beneficiaries undergoing stool-based CRC screening between ages 65-75 years. Outcomes of total costs, total quality adjusted life years (QALYs), life-years gained (LYG), CRC incidence reductions (IR), and CRC mortality reductions (MR) were calculated per 1000 individuals versus no screening using the weighted average of the outcome with multitarget stool DNA, fecal immunochemical test, and fecal occult blood test, scaled by their estimated use. Costs of follow-up COL were assumed to have 20% coinsurance in the status quo scenario. Four comparative scenarios assumed that waiving coinsurance increased published, real-world stool-based screening or follow-up COL adherence rates by 5% or 10%. Results: In scenarios where waiving coinsurance was assumed to increase screening and/or follow-up COL adherence, up to 21 more LYG and greater IR and MR were observed vs the status quo (Table). Total costs in waived coinsurance scenarios (≥$6,398) were comparable to the status quo ($6,449) as the cost savings in CRC care offset the increased COL costs. Total QALYs in waived coinsurance scenarios (≥9.3671) were greater than the status quo (9.3643) because of improved clinical outcomes. Stool-based testing in waived coinsurance scenarios was either dominant (more effective and less costly) or cost-effective at $50,000/QALY with minimal incremental costs vs the status quo. Conclusions: In a simulated Medicare population, clinical CRC outcomes improved and stool-based screening was cost-effective or cost-saving when waiving the 20% coinsurance was assumed to modestly (5%) increase adherence rates for total CRC screening and/or a COL following a positive test. [Table: see text]

405 Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fastest rising cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Although clinical guidelines recommend ultrasound (U/S), with or without the serum biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) for HCC surveillance in at-risk patients, only 24% of patients adhere to surveillance and only one-third of HCCs are detected before developing symptoms. A multi-target HCC blood-based test (mt-HBT) was recently shown to have promising sensitivity for early HCC detection and may help improve surveillance adherence given its blood-based nature. Our objective was to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness of mt-HBT with the current standard-of-care surveillance strategy in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We simulated a virtual trial by developing a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCC in patients with compensated (Child Pugh A) cirrhosis over a 30-year horizon. To inform model parameters, we used published data on tumor progression, competing risks of mortality, and real-world HCC surveillance adherence. Test performance characteristics were informed by a network meta-analysis. We simulated the life course of 51-year-old patients with cirrhosis and compared no surveillance with biannual surveillance using (1) AFP only, (2) U/S only, (3) U/S+AFP, (4) mt-HBT, and (5) mt-HBT with improved adherence. We assumed a blood-based test—without U/S—would improve surveillance adherence by 10% compared with current adherence (̃4% absolute improvement). Results: Per 100,000 cirrhosis patients, mt-HBT detected 6,220 more early-stage HCC than no surveillance, 2,250 (+57%) more than AFP, 1080 (+21%) more than U/S, and 200 (-3%) less than U/S+AFP. mt-HBT with improved adherence detected 210 (+3%) more early-stage HCC than U/S+AFP (Table). The remaining HCC cases were either symptomatic or the patients died per other competing causes prior to detection. The number of screening tests needed to detect one HCC were 296 for AFP, 287 for U/S, 253 for U/S+AFP, 254 for mt-HBT and 262 for mt-HBT with improved adherence. The number of diagnostic MRI/CT needed to detect one HCC were 40 for AFP, 38 for U/S, 45 for U/S+AFP, 37 for mt-HBT, and 38 for mt-HBT with improved adherence. Conclusions: mt-HBT detects more early-HCC cases than U/S and similar number of early-HCC cases with U/S+AFP. By decreasing surveillance barriers and increasing adherence, mt-HBT could improve early HCC detection and could be promising option for HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. [Table: see text]

10545 Background: Approximately 20–30% of colorectal cancers (CRC) arise from the serrated polyp pathway. The multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test has greater sensitivity to detect sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) than a leading fecal immunochemical test (FIT). However, most modeling analyses do not account for the contribution of the SSP pathway to risk of CRC. We used the CRC-AIM model to assess the impact of the SSP pathway on predicted CRC outcomes with mt-sDNA or FIT screening. Methods: A simulated cohort of average-risk US patients underwent triennial mt-sDNA or annual FIT screening from ages 50–75. The percentage of CRCs arising from the SSP pathway were modeled at 0% (base case), 20%, and 30%, with stool screening adherence based on theoretical (100%) or previously reported (mt-sDNA 71%; FIT 43%) rates. Published SSP sensitivities for mt-sDNA and FIT were used. All other model inputs were identical to CISNET models. Sensitivity analyses used screening adherence rates of 40–70%. Key outcomes were life-years gained (LYG), CRC incidence and CRC mortality per 1000 patients. Results: Including SSPs in the model demonstrated a greater loss of LYG with FIT than mt-sDNA (Table). At 100% adherence, compared with base case, modeling 20% or 30% SSP pathway CRCs resulted in a decrease of 9–15 LYG with FIT and 2–4 LYG with mt-sDNA, a decrease in CRC incidence reduction of 3.9–6.1% with FIT and 0.7–1.1% with mt-sDNA, and a decrease in CRC mortality reduction of 2.6–4.0% with FIT and 0.4–0.8% with mt-sDNA. Using previously reported adherence, compared with base case, modeling 20% or 30% SSP pathway CRCs resulted in a decrease of 13–20 LYG with FIT and 2–5 LYG with mt-sDNA, a decrease in CRC incidence reduction of 4.4–6.9% with FIT and 0.6–1.1% with mt-sDNA, and a decrease in CRC mortality reduction of 3.5–5.4% with FIT and 0.4–0.9% with mt-sDNA. Assuming reported adherence and 30% SSP pathway CRCs, mt-sDNA had 48 more LYG, 14.6% greater CRC incidence reduction, and 12.4% greater CRC mortality reduction than FIT. Assuming 30% SSP pathway CRCs, outcomes favored mt-sDNA vs FIT even after modeling equivalent adherence rates ranging from 40–70%. Conclusions: After incorporating the SSP pathway into the model, outcomes with mt-sDNA neared those of FIT at 100% screening adherence rates and surpassed FIT at more realistic reported screening adherence rates.[Table: see text]

Abstract Colorectal cancer–screening models commonly assume 100% adherence, which is inconsistent with real-world experience. The influence of adherence to initial stool-based screening [fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA)] and follow-up colonoscopy (after a positive stool test) on colorectal cancer outcomes was modeled using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model. Average-risk individuals without diagnosed colorectal cancer at age 40 undergoing annual FIT or triennial mt-sDNA screening from ages 50 to 75 were simulated. Primary analyses incorporated published mt-sDNA (71%) or FIT (43%) screening adherence, with follow-up colonoscopy adherence ranging from 40% to 100%. Secondary analyses simulated 100% adherence for stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow-up (S1), published adherence for stool-based screening with 100% adherence to colonoscopy follow-up (S2), and published adherence for both stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow-up after positive mt-sDNA (73%) or FIT (47%; S3). Outcomes were life-years gained (LYG) and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality reductions (per 1,000 individuals) versus no screening. Adherence to colonoscopy follow-up after FIT had to be 4%–13% higher than mt-sDNA to reach equivalent LYG. The theoretical S1 favored FIT versus mt-sDNA (LYG 316 vs. 297; colorectal cancer incidence reduction 68% vs. 64%; colorectal cancer mortality reduction 76% vs. 72%). The more realistic S2 and S3 favored mt-sDNA versus FIT (S2: LYG 284 vs. 245, colorectal cancer incidence reduction 61% vs. 50%, colorectal cancer mortality reduction 69% vs. 59%; S3: LYG 203 vs. 113, colorectal cancer incidence reduction 43% vs. 23%, colorectal cancer mortality reduction 49% vs. 27%, respectively). Incorporating realistic adherence rates for colorectal cancer screening influences modeled outcomes and should be considered when assessing comparative effectiveness. Prevention Relevance: Adherence rates for initial colorectal cancer screening by FIT or mt-sDNA and for colonoscopy follow-up of a positive initial test influence the comparative effectiveness of these screening strategies. Using adherence rates based on published data for stool-based testing and colonoscopy follow-up yielded superior outcomes with an mt-sDNA versus FIT-screening strategy.