Miguel Areia1,2, Lorenzo Fuccio3, Cesare Hassan4, Evelien Dekker5, António Dias-Pereira6, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro1,7. 1. Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), University of Porto (FMUP), Porto, Portugal. 2. Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 3. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy. 4. Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 7. Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
Background: Organised programmes for colorectal cancer screening demand a high burden of medical and economic resources. The preferred methods are the faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to perform an economic analysis and comparison between these tests in Europe. Methods: We used a Markov cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing biennial faecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy every 10 years screening versus non-screening in Portugal. The population was screened, aged from 50-74 years, and efficacy was evaluated in quality-adjusted life years. For the base-case scenario, the faecal immunochemical test cost was €3 with 50% acceptance and colonoscopy cost was €397 with 38% acceptance. The threshold was set at €39,760/quality-adjusted life years and the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: Screening by biennial faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in incremental utilities of 0.00151 quality-adjusted life years and 0.00185 quality-adjusted life years at additional costs of €4 and €191, respectively. The faecal immunochemical test was the most cost-effective option providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2694/quality-adjusted life years versus €103,633/quality-adjusted life years for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy capacity would have to increase 1.3% for a faecal immunochemical test programme or 31% for colonoscopy. Conclusion: Biennial faecal immunochemical test screening is better than colonoscopy as it is cost-effective, allows more individuals to get screened, and provides a more rational use of the endoscopic capacity available.
Background: Organised programmes for colorectal cancer screening demand a high burden of medical and economic resources. The preferred methods are the faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to perform an economic analysis and comparison between these tests in Europe. Methods: We used a Markov cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing biennial faecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy every 10 years screening versus non-screening in Portugal. The population was screened, aged from 50-74 years, and efficacy was evaluated in quality-adjusted life years. For the base-case scenario, the faecal immunochemical test cost was €3 with 50% acceptance and colonoscopy cost was €397 with 38% acceptance. The threshold was set at €39,760/quality-adjusted life years and the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: Screening by biennial faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in incremental utilities of 0.00151 quality-adjusted life years and 0.00185 quality-adjusted life years at additional costs of €4 and €191, respectively. The faecal immunochemical test was the most cost-effective option providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2694/quality-adjusted life years versus €103,633/quality-adjusted life years for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy capacity would have to increase 1.3% for a faecal immunochemical test programme or 31% for colonoscopy. Conclusion: Biennial faecal immunochemical test screening is better than colonoscopy as it is cost-effective, allows more individuals to get screened, and provides a more rational use of the endoscopic capacity available.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost analysis; cancer screening; colonoscopy; colorectal neoplasms; cost-benefit analysis; early detection of cancer; occult blood
Authors: Jennifer S Lin; Margaret A Piper; Leslie A Perdue; Carolyn M Rutter; Elizabeth M Webber; Elizabeth O'Connor; Ning Smith; Evelyn P Whitlock Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Manuel Zorzi; Ugo Fedeli; Elena Schievano; Emanuela Bovo; Stefano Guzzinati; Susanna Baracco; Chiara Fedato; Mario Saugo; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos Journal: Gut Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Reiko Nishihara; Kana Wu; Paul Lochhead; Teppei Morikawa; Xiaoyun Liao; Zhi Rong Qian; Kentaro Inamura; Sun A Kim; Aya Kuchiba; Mai Yamauchi; Yu Imamura; Walter C Willett; Bernard A Rosner; Charles S Fuchs; Edward Giovannucci; Shuji Ogino; Andrew T Chan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Armin Kuellmer; Juliane Behn; Benjamin Meier; Andreas Wannhoff; Dominik Bettinger; Robert Thimme; Karel Caca; Arthur Schmidt Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Pedro Currais; Susana Mão de Ferro; Miguel Areia; Inês Marques; Alexandra Mayer; António Dias Pereira Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-02-09
Authors: Amber P Gemmell; Caitlin B Mauer; Brian D Reys; Sara Pirzadeh-Miller; Theodora S Ross Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 2.183
Authors: Mathias M Petersen; Linnea Ferm; Jakob Kleif; Thomas B Piper; Eva Rømer; Ib J Christensen; Hans J Nielsen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-09-12 Impact factor: 6.639