Literature DB >> 15366746

Cost-effectiveness of two follow-up strategies for curative resection of colorectal cancer: comparative study using a Markov model.

Frédéric Borie1, Christophe Combescure, Jean-Pierre Daurès, Brigitte Trétarre, Bertrand Millat.   

Abstract

The follow-up of patients with curative resection of colorectal cancer is still controversial. The means mobilized for postoperative monitoring come at a high cost. However, the modalities are neither formalized nor validated with regard to an improved 5-year survival rate. To compare the cost-effectiveness of both strategies for patient follow-up during the 7 years following curative resection of colorectal cancer, we performed a costeffectiveness analysis adjusted for quality of life. Using data from the literature and a population study, a simulation of follow-up on patients who had undergone curative resection of colorectal cancer was carried out over a 7-year period using a Markov model. Two Markov processes were modeled to compare the cost-effectiveness ratio adjusted for quality of life in patients with a follow-up in accordance with the recommendations of the 1998 French Consensus Conference (standard follow-up) with the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay and a simplified follow-up. The influence of standard follow-up on the quality-adjusted life expectancy of patients who had Duke's stage A and B colorectal cancer appears to be modest, with increases of 2.5 months and 1.3 months, respectively; it is more acceptable for patients who had had Duke's stage C, with an increase of 11 months. The high variability of cost-effectiveness ratios (> 7 years) of +/- 44,830 and 180,195 Euro per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), respectively) did not favor the standard follow-up. The cost-effectiveness ratio (> 7 years) of patients having had Duke's stage C colorectal cancer was 1,058 (sd: 2746) Euro per QALY and could favor the standard follow-up. This study showed that standard follow-up with CEA assay tended to preferentially improve the survival of Duke's stage C patients. The type of examination needed and the frequency with which it has to be carried out should take account of the stage, treatment for the initial illness, and the patient's age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15366746     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-004-7256-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  22 in total

1.  [Colonic cancer: change in circumstances and techniques of diagnosis in France between 1990 and 1995].

Authors:  P Grosclaude; C Herbert; B Tretare; P Arveux; N Raverdy; P Schaffer; F Menegoz; J Faivre
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin Biol       Date:  1998-03

Review 2.  [Consensus conference. Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of colon cancer].

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin Biol       Date:  1998-02

3.  The value of a follow-up programme after radical surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  J T Ovaska; H J Järvinen; J P Mecklin
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 2.423

4.  Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  S D Ramsey; M R Andersen; R Etzioni; C Moinpour; S Peacock; A Potosky; N Urban
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5-year survival of colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  D Schoemaker; R Black; L Giles; J Toouli
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  NCCN Colorectal Cancer Practice Guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Authors:  P F Engstrom; A B Benson; A Cohen; J Doroshow; K Kiel; J Niederhuber; M Roh; M Tempero
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 2.990

7.  Five-year follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  J T Mäkelä; S O Laitinen; M I Kairaluoma
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1995-10

8.  Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  D J Bruinvels; A M Stiggelbout; J Kievit; H C van Houwelingen; J D Habbema; C J van de Velde
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Surgical treatment of recurrent colorectal cancer. Five-year follow-up.

Authors:  J Mäkelä; K Haukipuro; S Laitinen; M I Kairaluoma
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1989-09

10.  The value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen in predicting recurrent disease following curative resection of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J L McCall; R B Black; C A Rich; J R Harvey; R A Baker; J M Watts; J Toouli
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 4.585

View more
  6 in total

1.  Surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Adena Scheer; Rebecca Ann C Auer
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2009-11

2.  Rectal Cancer Surveillance-Recurrence Patterns and Survival Outcomes from a Cohort Followed up Beyond 10 Years.

Authors:  Winson Jianhong Tan; Hiang Jin Tan; Sreemanee Raaj Dorajoo; Fung Joon Foo; Choong Leong Tang; Min Hoe Chew
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2018-12

Review 3.  Colorectal cancer surveillance: what's new and what's next.

Authors:  Johnie Rose; Knut Magne Augestad; Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Follow-up recommendations for colon cancer.

Authors:  W Donald Buie; Jo-Anne P Attard
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2005-08

Review 5.  Tumor markers in colorectal cancer, gastric cancer and gastrointestinal stromal cancers: European group on tumor markers 2014 guidelines update.

Authors:  M J Duffy; R Lamerz; C Haglund; A Nicolini; M Kalousová; L Holubec; C Sturgeon
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  A simulation model of colorectal cancer surveillance and recurrence.

Authors:  Johnie Rose; Knut Magne Augestad; Chung Yin Kong; Neal J Meropol; Michael W Kattan; Qingqing Hong; Xuebei An; Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 2.796

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.