Literature DB >> 11802749

Cost-effectiveness of a single colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer.

Amnon Sonnenberg1, Fabiola Delcò.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A single colonoscopy at the age of 65 years has been recommended as a potential option to screen for colorectal cancer. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of 2 screening programs based on a single or repeated colonoscopy.
METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of screening is analyzed with a computer model of a Markov process. A hypothetical population of 100 000 subjects aged 50 years undergoes a single colonoscopy at the age of 65 years or repeated colonoscopy every 10 years starting at the age of 50. Transition rates are estimated from US vital statistics and cancer statistics and published data on polyp incidence, patient compliance, and efficacy of colonoscopy plus polypectomy in cancer prevention. Costs of screening and cancer care are estimated from the 1998 Medicare reimbursement data using the perspective of a third-party payer.
RESULTS: Compared with no screening, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a single or repeated colonoscopy amounts to $2981 or to $10 983 per life year saved, respectively. A single colonoscopy saves most life years if done at the age of 60, but becomes most cost-effective after the age of 70. Depending on the level of compliance, repeated colonoscopies save 2 to 3 times more lives than a screening program based on a single colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: A repeated colonoscopy every 10 years offers better prevention against colorectal cancer and represents a medically more desirable screening option. If high costs or low patient compliance renders this option not feasible, a single colonoscopy at the age of 65 would represent a highly cost-effective alternative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11802749     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.162.2.163

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  24 in total

1.  [Colorectal cancer in Germany. Means for prevention and early detection: implications for laiety and physicians].

Authors:  A Eickhoff; C Maar; B Birkner; J F Riemann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Colorectal cancer screening in Canada: it's time to act.

Authors:  Richard E Schabas
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-01-21       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy for treatment of Barrett's esophagus with high grade dysplasia.

Authors:  Chin Hur; Norman S Nishioka; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Cost-effectiveness of new tests to diagnose and treat coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Leslee J Shaw; Allen J Taylor; Patrick G O'Malley
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2005-08

5.  Perspectives: should older patients be screened for colorectal cancer?

Authors:  James Buxbaum; Edward Schneider
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 6.  Cancer Screening in the Elderly: A Review of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.360

7.  A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A case study using colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Scott B Cantor; Tanya Rajan; Suzanne K Linder; Robert J Volk
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Screening techniques for prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population.

Authors:  Hana Strul; Nadir Arber
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2007-05

9.  A cost analysis of colonoscopy using microcosting and time-and-motion techniques.

Authors:  Stephen G Henry; Reid M Ness; Renée A Stiles; Ayumi K Shintani; Robert S Dittus
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-07-31       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Cost effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis.

Authors:  Karin L Andersson; Joshua A Salomon; Sue J Goldie; Raymond T Chung
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-08-19       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.