Literature DB >> 10925988

Cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer at various ages.

R M Ness1, A M Holmes, R Klein, R Dittus.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: One-time colonoscopy has been recommended as a possible colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategy. Because the incidence of colorectal neoplasia increases with age, the effectiveness and cost of this strategy depend on the age at which screening occurs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the age-dependent cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening.
METHODS: We constructed a computer simulation model of the natural history of colorectal neoplasia. This model was used to compare the cost-utility of no screening and age-based strategies employing one-time colonoscopic screening (age ranges evaluated: 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, and 60-64 yr).
RESULTS: We determined that one-time colonoscopic screening in men age <60 yr and in women age <65 yr dominates never screening and screening at older ages. For both sexes, one-time colonoscopic screening between 50 and 54 yr of age is associated with a marginal cost-utility of less than $10,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year compared to screening between 55 and 60 yr of age. One-time colonoscopic screening between 45 and 49 yr of age is either dominated (women) or associated with a marginal cost-utility of $69,000/per quality-adjusted life-year (men) compared to screening between 50 and 54 yr of age. The marginal cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening is relatively insensitive to plausible changes in the cost of colonoscopy, the cost of CRC treatment, the sensitivity of colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia, the utility values representing the morbidity associated with the CRC-related health states, and the discount rate.
CONCLUSIONS: One-time colonoscopic screening between 50 and 54 yr of age is cost-effective compared to no screening and screening at older ages in both men and women. Screening in men between 45 and 49 yr of age may be cost-effective compared to screening between 50 and 54 yr of age depending on societal willingness to pay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10925988     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.02172.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  32 in total

1.  Visual screening for malignant melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Elena Losina; Rochelle P Walensky; Alan Geller; Frederick C Beddingfield; Lindsey L Wolf; Barbara A Gilchrest; Kenneth A Freedberg
Journal:  Arch Dermatol       Date:  2007-01

2.  Measuring the value of public health systems: the disconnect between health economists and public health practitioners.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Peter D Jacobson; Jennifer A Palmer
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Age-specific incidence of cancer: Phases, transitions, and biological implications.

Authors:  Rafael Meza; Jihyoun Jeon; Suresh H Moolgavkar; E Georg Luebeck
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-10-20       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Colorectal cancer predicted risk online (CRC-PRO) calculator using data from the multi-ethnic cohort study.

Authors:  Brian J Wells; Michael W Kattan; Gregory S Cooper; Leila Jackson; Siran Koroukian
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.657

Review 5.  CT colonography and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Ifigeneia Mavranezouli; James E East; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Colorectal cancer screening 2000: the role of colonoscopy in average-risk individuals.

Authors:  W E Smalley; G M Eisen
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2000-10

8.  The average-risk age threshold for colorectal cancer screening: should it be lowered?

Authors:  Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  A systematic comparison of microsimulation models of colorectal cancer: the role of assumptions about adenoma progression.

Authors:  Karen M Kuntz; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; Amy B Knudsen; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; James E Savarino; Eric J Feuer; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 10.  Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Alan M Zaslavsky; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.