AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of two population-based hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening programs, two-stage biomarker-ultrasound method and mass screening using abdominal ultrasonography (AUS). METHODS: In this study, we applied a Markov decision model with a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon for the general population-based cohorts in an area with high HCC incidence, such as Taiwan. The accuracy of biomarkers and ultrasonography was estimated from published meta-analyses. The costs of surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment were based on a combination of published literature, Medicare payments, and medical expenditure at the National Taiwan University Hospital. The main outcome measure was cost per life-year gained with a 3% annual discount rate. RESULTS: The results show that the mass screening using AUS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD39825 per life-year gained, whereas two-stage screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD49733 per life-year gained, as compared with no screening. Screening programs with an initial screening age of 50 years old and biennial screening interval were the most cost-effective. These findings were sensitive to the costs of screening tools and the specificity of biomarker screening. CONCLUSION: Mass screening using AUS is more cost effective than two-stage biomarker-ultrasound screening. The most optimal strategy is an initial screening age at 50 years old with a 2-year inter-screening interval.
AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of two population-based hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening programs, two-stage biomarker-ultrasound method and mass screening using abdominal ultrasonography (AUS). METHODS: In this study, we applied a Markov decision model with a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon for the general population-based cohorts in an area with high HCC incidence, such as Taiwan. The accuracy of biomarkers and ultrasonography was estimated from published meta-analyses. The costs of surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment were based on a combination of published literature, Medicare payments, and medical expenditure at the National Taiwan University Hospital. The main outcome measure was cost per life-year gained with a 3% annual discount rate. RESULTS: The results show that the mass screening using AUS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD39825 per life-year gained, whereas two-stage screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD49733 per life-year gained, as compared with no screening. Screening programs with an initial screening age of 50 years old and biennial screening interval were the most cost-effective. These findings were sensitive to the costs of screening tools and the specificity of biomarker screening. CONCLUSION: Mass screening using AUS is more cost effective than two-stage biomarker-ultrasound screening. The most optimal strategy is an initial screening age at 50 years old with a 2-year inter-screening interval.
Authors: Hans-Georg Eichler; Sheldon X Kong; William C Gerth; Panagiotis Mavros; Bengt Jönsson Journal: Value Health Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: L Bolondi; S Sofia; S Siringo; S Gaiani; A Casali; G Zironi; F Piscaglia; L Gramantieri; M Zanetti; M Sherman Journal: Gut Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Sammy Saab; David Ly; Jose Nieto; Fasiha Kanwal; David Lu; Steven Raman; Rafael Amado; Barbara Nuesse; Francisco Durazo; Steven Han; Douglas G Farmer; Rafik M Ghobrial; Hasan Yersiz; Pauline Chen; Kathy Schwegel; Leonard I Goldstein; Myron Tong; Ronald W Busuttil Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.799