Catherine Lejeune1, Karelle Le Gleut2, Vanessa Cottet3, Christine Galimard4, Gerard Durand2, Vincent Dancourt3, Jean Faivre3. 1. INSERM U 866, Burgundy University, Dijon Cedex, France. Electronic address: catherine.lejeune@u-bourgogne.fr. 2. ICONES, Rennes, France. 3. INSERM U 866, Burgundy University, Dijon Cedex, France; Burgundy Registry of Digestive Cancer, INSERM U 866, Dijon, France. 4. CPAM Côte d'Or, Dijon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal immunochemical test to use for generalised mass screening is still under debate in France. AIM: To compare the cost and effectiveness in biennial screening for colorectal cancer of fifteen strategies consisting of the three-stool sample un-rehydrated guaiac faecal occult blood test and three immunochemical tests: Magstream, FOB-Gold and OC-Sensor, at different positivity cut-off levels and stool-sample collection. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare these strategies in a general population of 100,000 individuals aged 50-74 over a 20-year period. RESULTS: Immunochemical tests were efficient strategies compared with guaiac faecal occult blood test. When all 15 strategies were compared with each other, only five of them remained efficient: the one- and two-stool sample Magstream, the one- and two-stool sample FOB-Gold with the 176 ng/mL cut-off, and the two-stool sample OC-Sensor with the 150 ng/mL cut-off. Sensitivity analyses showed that, at an identical price, the one-stool sample OC-Sensor was the most efficient strategy, and outperformed FOB-Gold. CONCLUSION: One-stool immunochemical testing can be considered a promising alternative to the guaiac faecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer mass screening in the general population. Competition between manufacturers should now be introduced to reduce purchase price differences.
BACKGROUND: The optimal immunochemical test to use for generalised mass screening is still under debate in France. AIM: To compare the cost and effectiveness in biennial screening for colorectal cancer of fifteen strategies consisting of the three-stool sample un-rehydrated guaiac faecal occult blood test and three immunochemical tests: Magstream, FOB-Gold and OC-Sensor, at different positivity cut-off levels and stool-sample collection. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare these strategies in a general population of 100,000 individuals aged 50-74 over a 20-year period. RESULTS: Immunochemical tests were efficient strategies compared with guaiac faecal occult blood test. When all 15 strategies were compared with each other, only five of them remained efficient: the one- and two-stool sample Magstream, the one- and two-stool sample FOB-Gold with the 176 ng/mL cut-off, and the two-stool sample OC-Sensor with the 150 ng/mL cut-off. Sensitivity analyses showed that, at an identical price, the one-stool sample OC-Sensor was the most efficient strategy, and outperformed FOB-Gold. CONCLUSION: One-stool immunochemical testing can be considered a promising alternative to the guaiac faecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer mass screening in the general population. Competition between manufacturers should now be introduced to reduce purchase price differences.
Authors: S Lucas Goede; Linda Rabeneck; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Lawrence F Paszat; Jeffrey S Hoch; Jean H E Yong; Sonja Kroep; Jill Tinmouth; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240