Literature DB >> 21623557

Cost effectiveness and projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening in France.

C Hassan1, R Benamouzig, C Spada, T Ponchon, A Zullo, J C Saurin, G Costamagna.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in France. Only scanty data on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in Europe are available, generating uncertainty over its efficiency. Although immunochemical fecal tests (FIT) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (g-FOBT) have been shown to be cost-effective in France, cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening has not yet been addressed.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies using colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), FIT and g-FOBT were compared using a Markov model. A 40 % adherence rate was assumed for all strategies. Colonoscopy costs included anesthesiologist assistance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Probabilistic and value-of-information analyses were used to estimate the expected benefit of future research. A third-payer perspective was adopted.
RESULTS: In the reference case analysis, FIT repeated every year was the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of €48165 per life-year gained vs. FIT every 2 years, which was the next most cost-effective strategy. Although CCE every 5 years was as effective as FIT 1-year, it was not a cost-effective alternative. Colonoscopy repeated every 10 years was substantially more costly, and slightly less effective than FIT 1-year. When projecting the model outputs onto the French population, the least (g-FOBT 2-years) and most (FIT 1-year) effective strategies reduced the absolute number of annual CRC deaths from 16037 to 12916 and 11217, respectively, resulting in an annual additional cost of €26 million and €347 million, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that FIT 1-year was the optimal choice in 20% of the simulated scenarios, whereas sigmoidoscopy 5-years, colonoscopy, and FIT 2-years were the optimal choices in 40%, 26%, and 14%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A screening program based on FIT 1-year appeared to be the most cost-effective approach for CRC screening in France. However, a substantial uncertainty over this choice is still present. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21623557     DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256409

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  20 in total

Review 1.  [International status colorectal cancer screening and quality assurance of screening-colonoscopy].

Authors:  Nikolaus Patera; Claudia Wild
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2013-09-05

Review 2.  Colon capsule endoscopy: What we know and what we would like to know.

Authors:  Cristiano Spada; Federico Barbaro; Gianluca Andrisani; Leonardo Minelli Grazioli; Cesare Hassan; Isabella Costamagna; Mariachiara Campanale; Guido Costamagna
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Cost-utility analysis of colonoscopy or faecal immunochemical test for population-based organised colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Miguel Areia; Lorenzo Fuccio; Cesare Hassan; Evelien Dekker; António Dias-Pereira; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 4.623

4.  Non-anesthesiologist administered propofol with or without midazolam for moderate sedation-the problem is not "which regimen" but "who's regimen".

Authors:  Suck-Ho Lee
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes.

Authors:  Julian F Daza; Carolyn M Tan; Ryan J Fielding; Allison Brown; Forough Farrokhyar; Ilun Yang
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Development of new non-invasive tests for colorectal cancer screening: the relevance of information on adenoma detection.

Authors:  Ulrike Haug; Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Visual distraction alone for the improvement of colonoscopy-related pain and satisfaction.

Authors:  Shotaro Umezawa; Takuma Higurashi; Shiori Uchiyama; Eiji Sakai; Hidenori Ohkubo; Hiroki Endo; Takashi Nonaka; Atsushi Nakajima
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Colon Capsule Endoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyps: An Economic Analysis.

Authors:  Stefan Palimaka; Gord Blackhouse; Ron Goeree
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2015-07-01

9.  Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey.

Authors:  Mustafa Kursat Sahin; Servet Aker; Hatice Nilden Arslan
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2017-02

10.  Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes.

Authors:  Julian F Daza; Carolyn M Tan; Ryan J Fielding; Allison Brown; Forough Farrokhyar; Ilun Yang
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 2.089

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.