Literature DB >> 21883782

Preliminary analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: demonstrating the potential value of comprehensive real world data.

B Tran1, C L Keating, S S Ananda, S Kosmider, I Jones, M Croxford, K M Field, R C Carter, P Gibbs.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: The complexity and cost of treating cancer patients is escalating rapidly and increasingly difficult decisions are being made regarding which interventions provide value for money. BioGrid Australia supports collection and analysis of comprehensive treatment and outcome data across multiple sites. Here, we use preliminary data regarding the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) and stage-specific treatment costs for colorectal cancer (CRC) to demonstrate the potential value of real world data for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA).
METHODS: Data regarding the impact of NBCSP on stage at diagnosis were combined with stage-specific CRC treatment costs and existing literature. An incremental CEA was undertaken from a government healthcare perspective, comparing NBCSP with no screening. The 2008 invited population (n= 681,915) was modelled in both scenarios. Effectiveness was expressed as CRC-related life years saved (LYS). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.
RESULTS: Over the lifetime and relative to no screening, NBCSP was predicted to save 1265 life years, prevent 225 CRC cases and cost an additional $48.3 million, equivalent to a cost-effectiveness ratio of $38,217 per LYS. A scenario analysis assuming full participation improved this to $23,395.
CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary CEA based largely on contemporary real world data suggests population-based faecal occult blood test screening for CRC is attractive. Planned ongoing data collection will enable repeated analyses over time, using the same methodology in the same patient populations, permitting an accurate analysis of the impact of new therapies and changing practice. Similar CEA using real world data related to other disease types and interventions appears desirable.
© 2011 The Authors. Internal Medicine Journal © 2011 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21883782     DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2011.02585.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Med J        ISSN: 1444-0903            Impact factor:   2.048


  9 in total

1.  Optimising the expansion of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

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

2.  Recommendations From the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network on the Evaluation of the Cost of Screening Programs.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Florence K L Tangka; Sonja Hoover; Marion Nadel; Robert Smith; Wendy Atkin; Julietta Patnick
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct

3.  Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.

Authors:  Dayna R Cenin; Steffie K Naber; Anne C de Weerdt; Mark A Jenkins; David B Preen; Hooi C Ee; Peter C O'Leary; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Impact of regular aspirin use on overall and cancer-specific survival in patients with colorectal cancer harboring a PIK3CA mutation.

Authors:  Nishi Kothari; Richard Kim; Robert N Jorissen; Jayesh Desai; Jeanne Tie; Hui-Li Wong; Ian Faragher; Ian Jones; Fiona L Day; Shan Li; Anuratha Sakthinandeswaren; Michelle Palmieri; Lara Lipton; Michael Schell; Jamie K Teer; David Shibata; Timothy Yeatman; Oliver M Sieber; Peter Gibbs; Ben Tran
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 4.089

5.  Optimal cumulative cisplatin dose in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients receiving additional induction chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jia-Wei Lv; Zhen-Yu Qi; Guan-Qun Zhou; Xiao-Jun He; Yu-Pei Chen; Yan-Ping Mao; Lei Chen; Ling-Long Tang; Wen-Fei Li; Ai-Hua Lin; Jun Ma; Ying Sun
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 6.716

6.  Family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios.

Authors:  Mary Dillon; Louisa Flander; Daniel D Buchanan; Finlay A Macrae; Jon D Emery; Ingrid M Winship; Alex Boussioutas; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins; Driss Ait Ouakrim
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 11.069

7.  Screening for colorectal cancer and advanced colorectal neoplasia in kidney transplant recipients: cross sectional prevalence and diagnostic accuracy study of faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin and colonoscopy.

Authors:  Michael G Collins; Edward Teo; Stephen R Cole; Choy-Yoke Chan; Stephen P McDonald; Graeme R Russ; Graeme P Young; Peter A Bampton; P Toby Coates
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-07-25

8.  Cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia.

Authors:  Driss A Ouakrim; Alex Boussioutas; Trevor Lockett; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.

Authors:  Heather Smith; Peyman Varshoei; Robin Boushey; Craig Kuziemsky
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 4.497

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.