ArticleAmerican health & drug benefits2018
Computed Tomography Colonography Less Costly Than Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening of Commercially Insured Patients.
Article in American health & drug benefits, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follow-up endoscopy rates as an indicator of effectiveness in colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The British journal of radiology · 2020Pooled it
- The Association of FIT-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening with Earlier Disease Detection: The Romanian Experience.Cancers · 2026Article
- Evaluation of colorectal cancer screening practices in Rhode Island, 2011-2021.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 45-49: provider availability, CT colonography access, and screening rates.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2025Article
- Review
- Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- CT colonography's role in the COVID-19 pandemic: a safe(r), socially distanced total colon examination.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputed tomography (CT) colonography's effectiveness, its associated patient advantages, and its potential role to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been demonstrated in previous research, but whether CT colonography has a cost advantage relative to optical colonoscopy for the commercially insured US population has not been assessed.
objectiveTo compare the costs of CRC screening using CT colonography or optical colonoscopy for commercially insured people in the United States.
methodsUsing retrospective commercial healthcare claims data and peer-reviewed studies, we performed a simulated multiyear, matched-case comparison of the costs of CT and optical colonoscopies for CRC screening. We estimated commercial optical colonoscopy costs per screening based on the 2016 Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Database and ancillary services, such as bowel preparation, anesthesia, pathology, and complication costs. We developed 4 scenarios for CT colonography cost per screening using the ratio of commercial to Medicare fees, and calculated ancillary service and follow-up costs from payers' costs for these services when associated with optical colonoscopies. For comparison, we converted the costs per screening to the costs per screening year per person using real-world screening intervals that were obtained from peer-reviewed studies.
resultsIn 2016, the average optical colonoscopy screening cost for commercial payers was $2033 (N = 406,068), or $340 per screening year per person. With our highest-cost CT colonography scenario, CT colonography costs 22% less, or $265 per screening year, than optical colonoscopy, mostly because of the advantages for patients of no anesthesia and the greatly reduced use of pathology services.
conclusionsThe use of CT colonography for CRC testing offers effective screening, patient-centered advantages, and lower costs compared with optical colonoscopy, and may be particularly appealing to the currently unscreened population with commercial health insurance. If the availability of CT colonography expands to meet the increased demand for it, CT colonography could cost up to 50% less than optical colonoscopy per screening year.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30647823PMC6306102W2980429184What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.