METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies using CT colonography or conventional colonoscopy was compared by computer models based on a Markov process. We supposed that a hypothetical population of 100,000 subjects aged 50 yr undergoes a screening procedure every 10 yr. Suspicious findings of CT colonography are worked-up by colonoscopy. After polypectomy, colonoscopy is repeated every 3 yr until no adenomatous polyps are found.

RESULTS: Under baseline conditions, screening by CT colonography costs $24,586 per life-year saved, compared with $20,930 spent on colonoscopy screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing CT colonography to no screening and colonoscopy to CT colonography were $11,484 and $10,408, respectively. Screening by colonoscopy remains more cost-effective even if the sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography both rise to 100%. For the two screening procedures to become similarly cost-effective, CT colonoscopy needs to be associated with an initial compliance rate 15-20% better or procedural costs 54% less than colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS: To become cost-effective and be able to compete with colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer, CT or MR colonography would need be offered at a very low price or result in compliance rates much better than those associated with colonoscopy. (Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:2268-2274. (C) 1999 by Am. Coll. of Gastroenterology).