Lieberman, David A.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recommend covering blood-based tests meeting proposed minimum performance thresholds for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Outcomes were compared between currently available stool-based screening tests and a hypothetical blood-based test meeting CMS minimum thresholds. Using the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM), outcomes were simulated for average-risk individuals screened between ages 45 and 75 years with triennial multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Per CMS guidance, blood-based CRC screening was modeled triennially, with 74% CRC sensitivity and 90% specificity. Although not specified by CMS, adenoma sensitivity was set between 10% and 20%. Published adenoma and CRC sensitivity and specificity were used for stool-based tests. Adherence was set at (1) 100%, (2) 30%–70%, in 10% increments, and (3) real-world rates for stool-based tests (mt-sDNA = 65.6%; FIT = 42.6%; FOBT = 34.4%). Assuming perfect adherence, a blood-based test produced ≥19 lower life-years gained (LYG) than stool-based strategies. At the best-case scenario for blood-based tests (100% adherence and 20% adenoma sensitivity), mt-sDNA at real-world adherence achieved more LYG (287.2 vs. 297.1, respectively) with 14% fewer colonoscopies. At 100% blood-based test adherence and real-world mt-sDNA and FIT adherence, the blood-based test would require advanced adenoma sensitivity of 30% to reach the LYG of mt-sDNA (297.1) and ∼15% sensitivity to reach the LYG of FIT (258.9). This model suggests that blood-based tests with CMS minimally acceptable CRC sensitivity and low advanced adenoma sensitivity will frequently yield inferior outcomes to stool-based testing across a wide range of adherence assumptions.

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]

Outreach, including patient navigation, has been shown to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in underserved populations. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) versus outreach, with or without a mailed annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in a Medicaid population. A microsimulation model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY), direct costs, and clinical outcomes in a cohort of Medicaid beneficiaries aged 50–64 years, over a lifetime time horizon. The base case model explored scenarios of either 100% adherence or real-world reported adherence (51.3% for mt-sDNA, 21.1% for outreach with FIT and 12.3% for outreach without FIT) with or without real-world adherence for follow-up colonoscopy (66.7% for all). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0%. At 100% adherence to both screening tests and follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA costed more and was less effective compared with outreach with or without FIT. When real-world adherence rates were considered for screening strategies (with 100% adherence for follow-up colonoscopy), mt-sDNA resulted in the greatest reduction in incidence and mortality from CRC (41.5% and 45.8%, respectively) compared with outreach with or without FIT; mt-sDNA also was cost-effective versus outreach with and without FIT ($32,150/QALY and $22,707/QALY, respectively). mt-sDNA remained cost-effective versus FIT, with or without outreach, under real-world adherence rates for follow-up colonoscopy. Outreach or navigation interventions, with associated real-world adherence rates to screening tests, should be considered when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in underserved populations.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives. METHODS: A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis. RESULTS: Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored. DISCUSSION: Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.

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]