Literature DB >> 19567507

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening: policy guidance based on patient preferences and compliance.

Sujha Subramanian1, Georgiy Bobashev, Robert J Morris.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Obtaining regular screening exams can significantly reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. Most CRC models to date have assumed "ideal conditions" such as 100% compliance, and the effects of CRC screening tests have been assessed only under these conditions. In this study, we assess cost-effectiveness incorporating real-world patient preferences and compliance.
METHODOLOGY: We built an agent-based simulation model to assess the effect of compliance and patient preferences. Baseline values were derived from the 2003 and 2005 National Health Interview Survey, and effectiveness and cost parameters were obtained through literature review. Initial screening compliance was 45%, and compliance with follow-up diagnostic tests was 75%.
RESULTS: The current level of screening reduces CRC mortality by 44.1% when compared with no screening. Increasing diagnostic follow-up compliance to 95% can lead to an additional 9.3% reduction in CRC mortality, whereas increasing initial screening compliance to 95% can result in an additional 50.4% reduction. These increases can be achieved at a cost of about $7,500 ($1,309-$32,864) per life year saved and $14,000 ($3,620-$35,855) per life year saved for diagnostic follow-up and initial screening tests, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing compliance with both initial screening test recommendation and diagnostic testing are cost-effective approaches. The most cost-effective approach under limited funding is to increase compliance with diagnostic testing for those already being screened. Targeted interventions, which are necessary to increase compliance, are generally cost-effective under the base case scenarios presented in this model, but additional studies are required to identify the most cost-effective approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19567507     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  17 in total

1.  Patients and caregivers costs for colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening: Experience of low-income individuals undergoing free colonoscopies.

Authors:  Sonja Hoover; Sujha Subramanian; Florence K L Tangka; Maggie Cole-Beebe; Amy Sun; Cheryl L Kramer; Gina Pacillio
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  2017-01-07

2.  Designing clinical trials for early (pre-dementia) Alzheimer's disease: determining the appropriate population for treatment.

Authors:  E Siemers
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.075

Review 3.  Agent-based modeling of noncommunicable diseases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Roch A Nianogo; Onyebuchi A Arah
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees.

Authors:  Melinda M Davis; Siddhartha Nambiar; Maria E Mayorga; Eliana Sullivan; Karen Hicklin; Meghan C O'Leary; Kristen Dillon; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Yifan Gu; Bonnie K Lind; Stephanie B Wheeler
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Effectiveness of a patient and practice-level colorectal cancer screening intervention in health plan members: the CHOICE trial.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Andrea Winquist; Laura A Schild; Carmen Lewis; Tracy Scott; Jonathan Hawley; Barbara K Rimer; Karen Glanz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Candidate serum biomarkers for early intestinal cancer using 15N metabolic labeling and quantitative proteomics in the ApcMin/+ mouse.

Authors:  Melanie M Ivancic; Edward L Huttlin; Xiaodi Chen; Jennifer K Pleiman; Amy A Irving; Adrian D Hegeman; William F Dove; Michael R Sussman
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 4.466

7.  A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Sonja Hoover; Florence K L Tangka; Amy DeGroff; Cynthia S Soloe; Laura C Arena; Dara F Schlueter; Djenaba A Joseph; Faye L Wong
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 8.  Opportunities and challenges for the use of large-scale surveys in public health research: a comparison of the assessment of cancer screening behaviors.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Nancy Breen; Carrie N Klabunde; Richard P Moser; Bryan Leyva; Erica S Breslau; Sarah C Kobrin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Estimating the impact of insurance expansion on colorectal cancer and related costs in North Carolina: A population-level simulation analysis.

Authors:  Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Meghan C O'Leary; Siddhartha Nambiar; Rachel M Townsley; Maria E Mayorga; Karen Hicklin; Leah Frerichs; Paul R Shafer; Melinda M Davis; Stephanie B Wheeler
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-10-27       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Automatic polyp detection in pillcam colon 2 capsule images and videos: preliminary feasibility report.

Authors:  Pedro N Figueiredo; Isabel N Figueiredo; Surya Prasath; Richard Tsai
Journal:  Diagn Ther Endosc       Date:  2011-05-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.