Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programmes using sigmoidoscopy and immunochemical faecal occult blood test.


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
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

76-83

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Auteurs

Carlo Senore (C)

1 SSD Epidemiology, screening unit - CPO, University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza", Turin, Italy.

Cesare Hassan (C)

1 SSD Epidemiology, screening unit - CPO, University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza", Turin, Italy.
2 Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy.

Daniele Regge (D)

3 Imaging Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
4 Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.

Eva Pagano (E)

5 SCDU Cancer epidemiology - CPO, University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza", Turin, Italy.

Gabriella Iussich (G)

6 Ospedale Regionale di Locarno La Carità, Locarno, Switzerland.

Loredana Correale (L)

7 i-m3D Spa. Imaging Lab, Turin, Italy.

Nereo Segnan (N)

1 SSD Epidemiology, screening unit - CPO, University Hospital "Città della Salute e della Scienza", Turin, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH