Miguel Areia1,2, Manon Cw Spaander3, Ernst J Kuipers3, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro1,4. 1. Center for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto (FMUP), Porto, Portugal. 2. Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 3. Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-holland, The Netherlands. 4. Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening for gastric cancer is debatable in countries with an intermediate risk. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to determine the cost-utility of screening strategies for gastric cancer in a European country. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model comparing three screening strategies versus no screening: stand-alone upper endoscopy, endoscopy combined with a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test or pepsinogens serologic screening. Clinical data were collected from systematic reviews, costs from published national data and utilities as quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The threshold was set at €37,000 (2016 prices). RESULTS: Upper endoscopy combined with screening colonoscopy (every 10 or 5 years) had an ICER of 15,407/QALY and €30,908/QALY respectively, stand-alone endoscopic screening (every five years) an ICER of €70,693/QALY and pepsinogens screening an ICER of €143,344/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that only endoscopic costs <€75, a provision of only three endoscopies per patient or a gastric cancer risk >25/100,000 would make stand-alone endoscopic screening cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic gastric cancer screening in Europe can be cost-effective if combined with a screening colonoscopy in countries with a gastric cancer risk ≥10 per 100,000.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening for gastric cancer is debatable in countries with an intermediate risk. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to determine the cost-utility of screening strategies for gastric cancer in a European country. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model comparing three screening strategies versus no screening: stand-alone upper endoscopy, endoscopy combined with a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test or pepsinogens serologic screening. Clinical data were collected from systematic reviews, costs from published national data and utilities as quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The threshold was set at €37,000 (2016 prices). RESULTS: Upper endoscopy combined with screening colonoscopy (every 10 or 5 years) had an ICER of 15,407/QALY and €30,908/QALY respectively, stand-alone endoscopic screening (every five years) an ICER of €70,693/QALY and pepsinogens screening an ICER of €143,344/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that only endoscopic costs <€75, a provision of only three endoscopies per patient or a gastric cancer risk >25/100,000 would make stand-alone endoscopic screening cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic gastric cancer screening in Europe can be cost-effective if combined with a screening colonoscopy in countries with a gastric cancer risk ≥10 per 100,000.
Entities:
Keywords:
Markov chains; Stomach neoplasm; costs and cost analysis; early detection of cancer; gastrointestinal endoscopy
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Enrique Quintero; Antoni Castells; Luis Bujanda; Joaquín Cubiella; Dolores Salas; Ángel Lanas; Montserrat Andreu; Fernando Carballo; Juan Diego Morillas; Cristina Hernández; Rodrigo Jover; Isabel Montalvo; Juan Arenas; Eva Laredo; Vicent Hernández; Felipe Iglesias; Estela Cid; Raquel Zubizarreta; Teresa Sala; Marta Ponce; Mercedes Andrés; Gloria Teruel; Antonio Peris; María-Pilar Roncales; Mónica Polo-Tomás; Xavier Bessa; Olga Ferrer-Armengou; Jaume Grau; Anna Serradesanferm; Akiko Ono; José Cruzado; Francisco Pérez-Riquelme; Inmaculada Alonso-Abreu; Mariola de la Vega-Prieto; Juana Maria Reyes-Melian; Guillermo Cacho; José Díaz-Tasende; Alberto Herreros-de-Tejada; Carmen Poves; Cecilio Santander; Andrés González-Navarro Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew Banks; David Graham; Marnix Jansen; Takuji Gotoda; Sergio Coda; Massimiliano di Pietro; Noriya Uedo; Pradeep Bhandari; D Mark Pritchard; Ernst J Kuipers; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Marco R Novelli; Krish Ragunath; Neil Shepherd; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro Journal: Gut Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Carina Leal; Nuno Almeida; Maria Silva; Antonieta Santos; Helena Vasconcelos; Pedro Figueiredo Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-05-25
Authors: Michael Selgrad; Jan Bornschein; Arne Kandulski; Jochen Weigt; Albert Roessner; Thomas Wex; Peter Malfertheiner Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: William Waddingham; Stella A V Nieuwenburg; Sean Carlson; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Manon Spaander; Ernst J Kuipers; Marnix Jansen; David G Graham; Matthew Banks Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2020-07-30