BACKGROUND: Studies examining interventional screening have lacked accurate data, because costs of hospital infrastructure, nursing and disinfection have not been included. We compared all costs of different strategies for screening, including colonoscopy, to provide a rational basis for decisions in early diagnosis. The costs, although based on Australian data, are probably applicable to all developed countries. METHODS: Comprehensive cost data from Australian private day endoscopy centres, public and private hospitals, physicians, anaesthetists and pathologists were used to assess medical and infrastructure hospital costs for various methods of screening. The data were processed using the Office of Technology Assessment colorectal cancer screening model. RESULTS: Annual or triennial faecal occult blood tests (FOBT; Hemoccult(®) ) are cost-effective, particularly with assumed 10-year dwell times (the time taken for an adenoma to become a cancer), the costs per year of life saved being $US 26 015 and $US 24 756, respectively. Colonoscopy at 5- or 10-year intervals is also cost-effective with similar dwell times, and colonoscopy every 10 years with a cost of $27 159 per year saved is comparable to annual or triennial FOBT. Double contrast barium enema at either 3- or 5-year intervals is cost-effective, but ideally should be combined with an annual FOBT, reducing the cost effectiveness of these options. FOBT also is ideally combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy; an annual FOBT and 5-yearly flexible sigmoidoscopy is cost-effective with both 5- and 10-year dwell times, though less than FOBT or colonoscopy. A once-only colonoscopy at age 50 is not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Annual or triennial FOBT, double contrast barium enema (DCBE) 3 and 5 and colonoscopy 5 and 10 are all cost-effective. There is less value in combining FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy alone. Physicians therefore have the option of offering individuals a range of cost-effective screening strategies, including colonoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Studies examining interventional screening have lacked accurate data, because costs of hospital infrastructure, nursing and disinfection have not been included. We compared all costs of different strategies for screening, including colonoscopy, to provide a rational basis for decisions in early diagnosis. The costs, although based on Australian data, are probably applicable to all developed countries. METHODS: Comprehensive cost data from Australian private day endoscopy centres, public and private hospitals, physicians, anaesthetists and pathologists were used to assess medical and infrastructure hospital costs for various methods of screening. The data were processed using the Office of Technology Assessment colorectal cancer screening model. RESULTS: Annual or triennial faecal occult blood tests (FOBT; Hemoccult(®) ) are cost-effective, particularly with assumed 10-year dwell times (the time taken for an adenoma to become a cancer), the costs per year of life saved being $US 26 015 and $US 24 756, respectively. Colonoscopy at 5- or 10-year intervals is also cost-effective with similar dwell times, and colonoscopy every 10 years with a cost of $27 159 per year saved is comparable to annual or triennial FOBT. Double contrast barium enema at either 3- or 5-year intervals is cost-effective, but ideally should be combined with an annual FOBT, reducing the cost effectiveness of these options. FOBT also is ideally combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy; an annual FOBT and 5-yearly flexible sigmoidoscopy is cost-effective with both 5- and 10-year dwell times, though less than FOBT or colonoscopy. A once-only colonoscopy at age 50 is not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Annual or triennial FOBT, double contrast barium enema (DCBE) 3 and 5 and colonoscopy 5 and 10 are all cost-effective. There is less value in combining FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy, or flexible sigmoidoscopy alone. Physicians therefore have the option of offering individuals a range of cost-effective screening strategies, including colonoscopy.
Authors: Michael P Pignone; Kathy L Flitcroft; Kirsten Howard; Lyndal J Trevena; Glenn P Salkeld; D James B St John Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Antonieta Medina-Lara; Bogdan Grigore; Ruth Lewis; Jaime Peters; Sarah Price; Paolo Landa; Sophie Robinson; Richard Neal; William Hamilton; Anne E Spencer Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014