Literature DB >> 29441568

Evaluation of the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of potential alternatives to iFOBT testing for colorectal cancer screening in Australia.

Jie-Bin Lew1,2, D James B St John3,4, Finlay A Macrae5, Jon D Emery6,7, Hooi C Ee8, Mark A Jenkins9, Emily He1,2, Paul Grogan10, Michael Caruana1,2, Diana Sarfati11, Marjolein J E Greuter12, Veerle M H Coupé12, Karen Canfell1,2,13.   

Abstract

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll-out 2-yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10-yearly, or once-off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51-67(74-80)% in comparison with no screening; 2-yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2-yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost-effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS-A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled-out NBCSP is highly cost-effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia.
© 2018 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Australia; National Bowel Cancer Screening Progam; colonosocopy; colorectal cancer screening; computed tomographic colonography; cost-effectiveness; iFOBT; multitarget faecal DNA testing; plasma DNA testing; sigmoidoscopy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29441568     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  11 in total

1.  Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Bernt-Peter Robra
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2021

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colon cancer screening strategies in the context of the French national screening program.

Authors:  Stéphanie Barré; Henri Leleu; R Benamouzig; Jean-Christophe Saurin; Alexandre Vimont; Sabrine Taleb; Frédéric De Bels
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-09-20       Impact factor: 4.409

3.  Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Shakira Milton; Jon D Emery; Jane Rinaldi; Joanne Kinder; Adrian Bickerstaffe; Sibel Saya; Mark A Jenkins; Jennifer McIntosh
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 7.960

4.  Pathways to a cancer-free future: a protocol for modelled evaluations to minimise the future burden of colorectal cancer in Australia.

Authors:  Eleonora Feletto; Jie-Bin Lew; Joachim Worthington; Emily He; Michael Caruana; Katherine Butler; Harriet Hui; Natalie Taylor; Emily Banks; Karen Barclay; Kate Broun; Alison Butt; Rob Carter; Jeff Cuff; Anita Dessaix; Hooi Ee; Jon Emery; Ian M Frayling; Paul Grogan; Carol Holden; Christopher Horn; Mark A Jenkins; James G Kench; Maarit A Laaksonen; Barbara Leggett; Gillian Mitchell; Susan Morris; Bonny Parkinson; D James St John; Linda Taoube; Katherine Tucker; Melanie A Wakefield; Robyn L Ward; Aung Ko Win; Daniel L Worthley; Bruce K Armstrong; Finlay A Macrae; Karen Canfell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-21       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Improving Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program outcomes through increased participation and cost-effective investment.

Authors:  Joachim Worthington; Jie-Bin Lew; Eleonora Feletto; Carol A Holden; Daniel L Worthley; Caroline Miller; Karen Canfell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Large-scale systematic analysis of exposure to multiple cancer risk factors and the associations between exposure patterns and cancer incidence.

Authors:  Julia Steinberg; Sarsha Yap; David Goldsbury; Visalini Nair-Shalliker; Emily Banks; Karen Canfell; Dianne L O'Connell
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals.

Authors:  Robert Benamouzig; Stéphanie Barré; Jean-Christophe Saurin; Henri Leleu; Alexandre Vimont; Sabrine Taleb; Frédéric De Bels
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-04-10       Impact factor: 4.409

8.  The SMARTscreen Trial: a randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy of a GP-endorsed narrative SMS to increase participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna Wood; Jon D Emery; Mark Jenkins; Patty Chondros; Tina Campbell; Edweana Wenkart; Clare O'Reilly; Tony Cowie; Ian Dixon; Julie Toner; Hourieh Khalajzadeh; Javiera Martinez Gutierrez; Linda Govan; Gemma Buckle; Jennifer G McIntosh
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 9.  Cancer screening simulation models: a state of the art review.

Authors:  Aleksandr Bespalov; Anton Barchuk; Anssi Auvinen; Jaakko Nevalainen
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Joan Mendivil; Marilena Appierto; Susana Aceituno; Mercè Comas; Montserrat Rué
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.