Literature DB >> 30659991

Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies-A Systematic Review.

Tao Ran1, Chih-Yuan Cheng2, Benjamin Misselwitz3, Hermann Brenner4, Jasper Ubels2, Michael Schlander5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Widespread screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has reduced its incidence and mortality. Previous studies investigated the economic effects of CRC screening. We performed a systematic review to provide up-to-date evidence of the cost effectiveness of CRC screening strategies by answering 3 research questions.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Social Sciences Citation Index (via the Web of Science), EconLit (American Economic Association) and 3 supplemental databases for original articles published in English from January 2010 through December 2017. All monetary values were converted to US dollars (year 2016). For all research questions, we extracted, or calculated (if necessary), per-person costs and life years (LYs) and/or quality-adjusted LYs, as well as the incremental costs per LY gained or quality-adjusted LY gained compared with the baseline strategy. A cost-saving strategy was defined as one that was less costly and equally or more effective than the baseline strategy. The net monetary benefit approach was used to answer research question 2.
RESULTS: Our review comprised 33 studies (17 from Europe, 11 from North America, 4 from Asia, and 1 from Australia). Annual and biennial guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests, annual and biennial fecal immunochemical tests, colonoscopy every 10 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years were cost effective (even cost saving in most US models) compared to no screening. In addition, colonoscopy every 10 years was less costly and/or more effective than other common strategies in the United States. Newer strategies such as computed tomographic colonography, every 5 or 10 years, was cost effective compared with no screening.
CONCLUSIONS: In an updated review, we found that common CRC screening strategies and computed tomographic colonography continued to be cost effective compared to no screening. There were discrepancies among studies from different regions, which could be associated with the model types or model assumptions.
Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contributing Factors; Decision-Making; Economic Evidence; Simulation Models

Year:  2019        PMID: 30659991     DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  31 in total

1.  Influence of aspirin on prevention of colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Abdullah A Ghaddaf; Muhammad Aziz; Mohammed S Alomari; Ahmed S Abdulhamid; Fahad A Alharbi; Abdullah N Mullah; Syed Fasial Zaidi
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Colorectal Cancer Prevalence and Survival in Cuenca (Spain).

Authors:  Laura Valiente González; Ricardo de Miguel Ibáñez; Francisco Escribano Sotos
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2022-01-13

3.  Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rebekah Hall; Antonieta Medina-Lara; Willie Hamilton; Anne E Spencer
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  A comparative examination of colorectal cancer burden in European Union, 1990-2019: Estimates from Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study.

Authors:  Rajesh Sharma
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 3.850

5.  Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  He Zhu; Fudong Li; Ke Tao; Jing Wang; Carissa Scurlock; Xiaofei Zhang; Hong Xu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Comparative benefit and cost-effectiveness of mailed-out faecal immunochemical tests vs collection at the general practitioner.

Authors:  Elisabeth F P Peterse; Caroline B Osoro; Marc Bardou; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 8.171

7.  Screening for Nasopharyngeal Cancer in High-Risk Populations: A Small Price to Pay for Early Disease Identification?

Authors:  John R de Almeida; Scott V Bratman; Aaron R Hansen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Cost-utility of colorectal cancer screening at 40 years old for average-risk patients.

Authors:  Nilofer S Azad; Ira L Leeds; Waruguru Wanjau; Eun J Shin; William V Padula
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  The Financial Cost of Interprofessional Ambulatory Training: What's the Bottom Line?

Authors:  Lauren Block; Adam Lalley; Nancy A LaVine; Daniel J Coletti; Joseph Conigliaro; Joy Achuonjei; Adam E Block
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2021-01-08

Review 10.  Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

Authors:  Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Davide Bellini; David Burling; Giovanni Cappello; Cristina Carretero; Evelien Dekker; Rami Eliakim; Margriet de Haan; Michal F Kaminski; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Martina Morrin; Deirdre McNamara; Emanuele Neri; Silvia Pecere; Mathieu Pioche; Andrew Plumb; Emanuele Rondonotti; Manon Cw Spaander; Stuart Taylor; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jaap Stoker; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.