Subscribe to RSS
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/60f12/60f1207d64e709348d01b6a01c0352d16ea3240a" alt=""
DOI: 10.1055/a-2136-3428
Cost-utility analysis of real-time artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy in Italy
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c9110/c9110b53c4c91a611384f1ed430cc864fc3af311" alt=""
Abstract
Background and study aims Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy has proven to be effective compared with colonoscopy alone in an average-risk population. We aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of GI GENIUS, the first marketed real-time AI system in an Italian high-risk population.
Methods A 1-year cycle cohort Markov model was developed to simulate the disease evolution of a cohort of Italian individuals positive on fecal immunochemical test (FIT), aged 50 years, undergoing colonoscopy with or without the AI system. Adenoma or colorectal cancer (CRC) were identified according to detection rates specific for each technique. Costs were estimated from the Italian National Health Service perspective.
Results Colonoscopy+AI system was dominant with respect to standard colonoscopy. The GI GENIUS system prevented 155 CRC cases (–2.7%), 77 CRC-related deaths (–2.8%), and improved quality of life (+0.027 QALY) with respect to colonoscopy alone. The increase in screening cost (+€10.50) and care for adenoma (+€3.53) was offset by the savings in cost of care for CRC (–€28.37), leading to a total savings of €14.34 per patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the cost-efficacy of the AI system (almost 80% probability).
Conclusions The implementation of AI detection tools in colonoscopy after patients test FIT-positive seems to be a cost-saving strategy for preventing CRC incidence and mortality.
Publication History
Received: 29 March 2023
Accepted after revision: 10 July 2023
Accepted Manuscript online:
24 July 2023
Article published online:
10 November 2023
© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I. et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394-424
- 2 I numeri del cancro in Italia. 2019 https://www.epicentro.iss.it/tumori/registri
- 3 Simon K. Colorectal cancer development and advances in screening. Clin Interv Aging 2016; 11: 967-976
- 4 Zorzi M, Mangone L, Anghinoni E. et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in Italy: 2011–2012 survey. Epidemiol Prev 2015; 39: 108-114
- 5 Gini A, Jansen EEL, Zielonke N. et al. Impact of colorectal cancer screening on cancer-specific mortality in Europe: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2020; 127: 224-235
- 6 Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P. et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1661-1674.e11
- 7 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT. et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
- 8 Hassan C, Spadaccini M, Iannone A. et al. Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 77-85.e6
- 9 Hassan C, Wallace MB, Sharma P. et al. New artificial intelligence system: first validation study versus experienced endoscopists for colorectal polyp detection. Gut 2020; 69: 799-800
- 10 Repici A, Badalamenti M, Maselli R. et al. Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 512-520.e7
- 11 Zorzi M, Hassan C, Capodaglio G. et al. Long-term performance of colorectal cancer screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 2018; 67: 2124-2130
- 12 Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F. et al. Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy). Gut 2017; 66: 1233-1240
- 13 Coretti S, Ruggeri M, Dibidino R. et al. Economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening programs: Affordability for the health service. J Med Screen 2020; 27: 186-193
- 14 Gilard-Pioc S, Abrahamowicz M, Mahboubi A. et al. Multi-state relative survival modelling of colorectal cancer progression and mortality. Cancer Epidemiol 2015; 39: 447-455
- 15 GU Serie Generale n.23 del 28–01–2013 - Suppl. Ordinario n. 8. Decreto 18 ottobre 2012. Remunerazione prestazioni di assistenza ospedaliera per acuti, assistenza ospedaliera di riabilitazione e di lungodegenza post acuzie e di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale. (13A00528). https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2013/01/28/13A00528/sg Accessed April 2021
- 16 Ministero della Salute. Rapporto annuale sull’attività di ricovero ospedaliero (Dati SDO 2018). Giugno . 2019 http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/documentazione/p6_2_8_3_1.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=22
- 17 Franchi M, Garau D, Kirchmayer U. et al. Effectiveness and costs associated to adding cetuximab or bevacizumab to chemotherapy as initial treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from the Observational FABIO Project. Cancers 2020; 12: 839
- 18 Meester RGS, Zauber AG, Doubeni CA. et al. Consequences of increasing time to colonoscopy examination following positive result from fecal colorectal cancer screening test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1445-1451.e8
- 19 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Quinn VP. et al. Association between time to colonoscopy after a positive fecal test result and risk of colorectal cancer and cancer stage at diagnosis. JAMA 2017; 317: 1631-1641
- 20 Harmonized Indices of Consumer Prices (HICP), European Commission EuroStat 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/hicp/data/main-tables 2021
- 21 Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Ciampichini R. et al. Health related quality of life norm data of the general population in Italy: results using the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health 2015; 12.
- 22 Stanciole AE, Ortegon M, Chisholm D. et al. Cost effectiveness of strategies to compact chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study. BMJ 2012; 344: e608
- 23 Repici A, Spadaccini M, Antonelli G. et al. Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy experience: lessons from two randomised trials. Gut 2021; 0: 1-9
- 24 Areia M, Mori Y, Correale L. et al. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence for screening colonoscopy: a modelling study. Lancet Digit Health 2022; 4: E436-E444
- 25 Zorzi M, Antonelli G, Barbiellini Amidei C. et al. Adenoma detection rate and colorectal cancer risk in fecal immunochemical test screening programs: an observational cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2023; 176: 303-310
- 26 Wisse PHA, Erler NS, de Boer SY. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk for interval postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer in fecal immunochemical test-based screening: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175: 1366-1373
- 27 I programmi di screening in Italia – Ministero della Salute. https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_2305_allegato.pdf