Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programmes using sigmoidoscopy and immunochemical faecal occult blood test.
Colorectal cancer
FIT
cost-effectiveness
screening
sigmoidoscopy
simulation model
Journal
Journal of medical screening
ISSN: 1475-5793
Titre abrégé: J Med Screen
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9433359
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
6
9
2018
medline:
30
5
2020
entrez:
6
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Several European countries are implementing organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and/or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), but the cost-effectiveness of these programmes is not yet available. We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness, based on data from the established Piedmont screening programme. Using the Piedmont programme data, a Markov model was constructed comparing three strategies in a simulated cohort of 100,000 subjects: single FS, biennial FIT, or sequential strategy (FS + FIT offered to FS non-responders). Estimates for CRC incidence and mortality prevention were derived from studies of organized screening. Cost analysis for FS and FIT was based on data from organized programmes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) between the different strategies were calculated. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were performed. Direct costs for FS, and for FIT at first and subsequent rounds, were estimated as €160, €33, and €21, respectively. All the simulated strategies were effective (10-17% CRC incidence reduction) and cost-effective vs. no screening (ICER <€1000 per life-year saved). FS and FS + FIT were the only cost-saving strategies, with FS least expensive (€15 saving per person invited). FS + FIT and FS were the only non-dominated strategies. FS + FIT were more effective and cost-effective than FS (ICER €1217 per life-year saved). The residual marginal uncertainty was mainly related to parameters inherent to FIT effectiveness and adherence. Organized CRC screening programmes are highly cost-effective, irrespective of the test selected. A sequential approach with FS and FIT appears the most cost-effective option. A single FS is the least expensive, but convenient, approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30180780
doi: 10.1177/0969141318789710
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
76-83Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn