OBJECTIVE: To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of full implementation of biennial bowel cancer screening for Australian residents aged 50-74 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Identification of existing economic models from 1993 to 2010 through searches of PubMed and economic analysis databases, and by seeking expert advice; and additional modelling to determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of full implementation of biennial faecal occult blood test screening for the five million adults in Australia aged 50-74 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated number of deaths from bowel cancer prevented, costs, and cost-effectiveness (cost per life-year gained [LYG]) of biennial bowel cancer screening. RESULTS: We identified six relevant economic analyses, all of which found colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to be very cost-effective, with costs per LYG under $55,000 per year in 2010 Australian dollars. Based on our additional modelling, we conservatively estimate that full implementation of biennial screening for people aged 50-74 years would have gross costs of $150 million, reduce CRC mortality by 15%-25%, prevent 300-500 deaths from bowel cancer, and save 3600-6000 life-years annually, for an undiscounted cost per LYG of $25,000-$41,667, compared with no screening, and not taking cost savings as a result of treatment into consideration. The additional expenditure required, after accounting for reductions in CRC incidence, savings in CRC treatment costs, and existing ad-hoc colonoscopy use, is likely to be less than $50 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: Full implementation of biennial faecal occult blood test screening in Australia can reduce bowel cancer mortality, and is an efficient use of health resources that would require modest additional government investment.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of full implementation of biennial bowel cancer screening for Australian residents aged 50-74 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Identification of existing economic models from 1993 to 2010 through searches of PubMed and economic analysis databases, and by seeking expert advice; and additional modelling to determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of full implementation of biennial faecal occult blood test screening for the five million adults in Australia aged 50-74 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated number of deaths from bowel cancer prevented, costs, and cost-effectiveness (cost per life-year gained [LYG]) of biennial bowel cancer screening. RESULTS: We identified six relevant economic analyses, all of which found colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to be very cost-effective, with costs per LYG under $55,000 per year in 2010 Australian dollars. Based on our additional modelling, we conservatively estimate that full implementation of biennial screening for people aged 50-74 years would have gross costs of $150 million, reduce CRC mortality by 15%-25%, prevent 300-500 deaths from bowel cancer, and save 3600-6000 life-years annually, for an undiscounted cost per LYG of $25,000-$41,667, compared with no screening, and not taking cost savings as a result of treatment into consideration. The additional expenditure required, after accounting for reductions in CRC incidence, savings in CRC treatment costs, and existing ad-hoc colonoscopy use, is likely to be less than $50 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: Full implementation of biennial faecal occult blood test screening in Australia can reduce bowel cancer mortality, and is an efficient use of health resources that would require modest additional government investment.
Authors: J S Mandel; T R Church; J H Bond; F Ederer; M S Geisser; S J Mongin; D C Snover; L M Schuman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael V Maciosek; Leif I Solberg; Ashley B Coffield; Nichol M Edwards; Michael J Goodman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kathy L Flitcroft; Glenn P Salkeld; James A Gillespie; Lyndal J Trevena; Les M Irwig Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Alison Brenner; Kirsten Howard; Carmen Lewis; Stacey Sheridan; Trisha Crutchfield; Sarah Hawley; Dan Reuland; Christine Kistler; Michael Pignone Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Germaine Wong; Kirsten Howard; Jeremy R Chapman; Allison Tong; Michael J Bourke; Andrew Hayen; Petra Macaskill; Richard L Hope; Narelle Williams; Anh Kieu; Richard Allen; Steven Chadban; Carol Pollock; Angela Webster; Simon D Roger; Jonathan C Craig Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Dayna R Cenin; D James B St John; Melissa J N Ledger; Terry Slevin; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: K L Flitcroft; D J B St John; K Howard; S M Carter; M P Pignone; G P Salkeld; L J Trevena Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Mary E Charlton; Kevin A Matthews; Anne Gaglioti; Camden Bay; Bradley D McDowell; Marcia M Ward; Barcey T Levy Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Crispin J Corte; Daniel C Burger; Gareth Horgan; Adam A Bailey; James E East Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Ryan J Courtney; Christine L Paul; Robert W Sanson-Fisher; Finlay A Macrae; Mariko L Carey; John Attia; Mark McEvoy Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 3.295