| Literature DB >> 34103936 |
Nguyen Quynh Anh1, Nguyen Thu Ha1.
Abstract
To provide important evidence for the resource allocation process in Vietnam, this research was conducted to explore the return on investment (ROI) of the national colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. A decision tree model was designed to estimate the cost and cost savings of a national screening program (ie, providing annual fecal occult blood test [FOBT], following with colonoscopy in case of FOBT positive for the medium-risk group over 50 years old) compared to no screening scenario. This was the first attempt in estimating the ROI of a public health program in Vietnam. Although there was a wide variation due to the uncertainty of the input parameters, especially regarding the coverage of the colorectal cancer screening program in the community, the calculated ROI rates in all different cases were positive, demonstrating that the national colorectal cancer screening program brought benefits to the investment. With a modest coverage of 30% of the population over the age of 50, the corresponding ROI value was 325.4% (95%UI: 321.0; 329.9). The results of this study could be used to advocate for the implementation of a national colorectal cancer screening program in terms of the monetary benefits of investing in the program.Entities:
Keywords: ROI; Return on Investment; Vietnam; colorectal cancer; screening
Year: 2021 PMID: 34103936 PMCID: PMC8150636 DOI: 10.1177/11786329211017418
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Serv Insights ISSN: 1178-6329
Input parameters and assumptions of the model.
| Input parameters | Mean | Lower value | Upper value | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population over 50 years old | ||||
| 50-54 | 6 479 836 | 5 711 341 | 7 282 098 | General Statistics Office[ |
| 54-59 | 5 499 208 | 4 847 013 | 6 180 059 | |
| 60-64 | 3 787 916 | 3 338 677 | 4 256 894 | |
| 65-69 | 2 576 552 | 2 270 978 | 2 895 552 | |
| 70-74 | 1 586 310 | 1 398 177 | 1 782 709 | |
| 75-79 | 1 432 486 | 1 262 596 | 1 609 840 | |
| 80+ | 2 086 238 | 1 838 814 | 2 344 533 | |
| Prevalence of having polyps for different age groups in Vietnam | ||||
| 50-54 | 0.120 | 0.110 | 0.130 | Institute for Health Metrics evaluation[ |
| 54-59 | 0.120 | 0.110 | 0.130 | |
| 60-64 | 0.310 | 0.260 | 0.360 | |
| 65-69 | 0.310 | 0.260 | 0.360 | |
| 70-74 | 0.310 | 0.260 | 0.360 | |
| 75-79 | 0.310 | 0.260 | 0.360 | |
| 80+ | 0.465 | 0.430 | 0.500 | |
| Prevalence of having colorectal cancer for different age groups in Vietnam | ||||
| 50-54 | 0.00183 | 0.00136 | 0.00241 | Institute for Health Metrics Evaluation[ |
| 54-59 | 0.00291 | 0.00222 | 0.00375 | |
| 60-64 | 0.00381 | 0.00297 | 0.00481 | |
| 65-69 | 0.00427 | 0.00336 | 0.00557 | |
| 70-74 | 0.00384 | 0.00304 | 0.00477 | |
| 75-79 | 0.00401 | 0.00320 | 0.00500 | |
| 80+ | 0.00511 | 0.00439 | 0.00600 | |
| Rate of undertaking FOBT—with national screening scenario (%) | 90 | 81.0 | 99.0 | Discussion with stakeholders |
| Rate of undertaking FOBT—without national screening scenario (%) | 10 | 9.0 | 11.0 | |
| Rate of undertaking colonoscopy—for those with FOBT positive (%) | 80 | 72.0 | 88.0 | |
| Rate of undertaking Colonoscopy—for those with FOBT negative (%) | 10 | 9.0 | 11.0 | |
| Sensitivity for detecting Polyps | ||||
| FOBT (%) | 11 | 1.5 | 20 | Silva-Illanes and Espinoza[ |
| Colonoscopy (%) | 85 | 74 | 100 | |
| Specificity for detecting Polyps | ||||
| FOBT (%) | 97 | 88.6 | 99.5 | Silva-Illanes and Espinoza[ |
| Colonoscopy (%) | 99 | 95 | 100 | |
| Sensitivity for detecting CRC | ||||
| FOBT (%) | 36 | 12.90 | 72 | Silva-Illanes and Espinoza[ |
| Colonoscopy (%) | 95 | 90 | 100 | |
| Specificity for detecting CRC | ||||
| FOBT (%) | 97 | 80 | 99.5 | Silva-Illanes and Espinoza[ |
| Colonoscopy (%) | 95 | 90 | 100 | |
| Mortality rate | ||||
| 50-54 | 0.00302 | WHO Life table, 2018[ | ||
| 55-59 | 0.00506 | |||
| 60-64 | 0.00782 | |||
| 65-69 | 0.01334 | |||
| 70-74 | 0.02147 | |||
| 75-79 | 0.03444 | |||
| 80-84 | 0.05489 | |||
| 85+ | 0.08652 | |||
| 5-year survival rate | ||||
| Stage I CRC | 0.869 | Lew et al[ | ||
| Stage II CRC | 0.730 | |||
| Stage III CRC | 0.424 | |||
| Stage IV CRC | 0.095 | |||
| Rate of developing CRC from having polyps | 0.0010 | Orsak et al[ | ||
| Rate of early-stage CRC detected | 0.6363 | Orsak et al[ | ||
| Average cost of polyps’ removal per visit | US$ 81.5 | US$ 73.3 | US$ 89.6 | Estimation from reimbursed data provided by Vietnam Social Security, 2018 |
| (I$ 240.5) | (I$ 216.4) | (I$ 264.5) | ||
| Average CRC treatment cost for 1 year (from the Vietnam Social Insurance perspectives) | ||||
| Diagnosis and primary therapy phase | US$ 4222.6 (I$ 13518.6) | US$ 3800.3 (I$ 12166.7) | US$ 4644.9 (I$ 14870.4) | Nguyen et al[ |
| Metastatic phase | US$ 3639.7 (I$ 11652.4) | US$ 3275.7 (I$ 10487.2) | US$ 4003.7 (I$ 12817.6) | |
| Controlled phase | US$ 2697.8 (I$ 8637.1) | US$ 2428.0 (I$ 7773.4) | US$ 2967.6 (I$ 9500.8) | |
| Terminal phase | US$ 764.7 (I$ 2448.2) | US$ 688.2 (I$ 2203.4) | US$ 841.2 (I$ 2693.0) | |
| Average CRC treatment cost for 1 year (from the Health facilities perspectives) | ||||
| Diagnosis and primary therapy phase | US$ 1993.1 (I$ 6380.9) | US$ 1793.8 (I$ 5742.8) | US$ 2192.4 (I$ 7018.9) | Nguyen et al[ |
| Metastatic phase | US$ 3586.1 (I$ 11480.7) | US$ 3227.5 (I$ 10332.6) | US$ 3944.7 (I$ 12628.8) | |
| Controlled phase | US$ 2407.7 (I$ 7708.2) | US$ 2166.9 (I$ 6937.4) | US$ 2648.5 (I$ 8479.0) | |
| Terminal phase | US$ 559.9 (I$ 1792.6) | US$ 503.9 (I$ 1613.3) | US$ 615.9 (I$ 1971.9) | |
| Average CRC treatment cost for 1 year (from the Patient’s household perspectives) | ||||
| Diagnosis and primary therapy phase | US$ 5290.2 (I$ 36835.9) | US$ 4761.2 (I$ 33152.3) | US$ 5819.2 (I$ 40519.5) | Nguyen et al[ |
| Metastatic phase | US$ 6102.7 (I$ 19537.9) | US$ 5492.4 (I$ 17584.1) | US$ 6713.0 (I$ 21491.7) | |
| Controlled phase | US$ 2572.0 (I$ 8234.3) | US$ 2314.8 (I$ 7410.9) | US$ 2829.2 (I$ 9057.7) | |
| Terminal phase | US$ 1669.7 (I$ 5345.5) | US$ 1502.7 (I$ 4810.9) | US$ 1836.7 (I$ 5880.1) | |
| Estimates of investment cost | ||||
| Cost of conducting Colonoscopy (per visit) | US$ 20.33 (I$ 60.00) | US$ 18.30 (I$ 54.00) | US$ 22.36 (I$ 66.00) | Estimation from district level hospitals; Circular 39/2018/TT-BYT |
| Cost of conducting FOBT (per test) | US$ 3.40 (I$ 10.02) | US$ 3.06 (I$ 9,02) | US$ 3.74 (I$ 11,02) | Estimation from Circular 39/2018/TT-BYT; Pilot CRC Screening Program in Hanoi |
| Cost of implementing program per targeted person (cost of human resource, equipment and supplies for planning and management, communication activities, etc.) | US$ 0.448 (I$ 1.44) | US$ 0.403 (I$ 1.30) | US$ 0.493 (I$ 1.58) | Estimation from National Cancer Control Program |
Figure 1.Decision tree model for estimating the cost and cost saving of colorectal cancer screening program
Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; FN, false negative; TN, true negative; TP, true positive.
Deterministic analysis results.
| In million US$ | In million I$ | |
|---|---|---|
| Total investment | 409.57 | 1208.83 |
| Total benefit | 1787.26 | 5275.01 |
| Net profit (NP) | 1377.69 | 4066.18 |
| Cost benefit ratio (CBR) | 4.363 | |
| ROI rate (%) | 336.4 | |
Sensitivity analysis result with different coverage rates of the CRC screening program in Vietnam.
| Screening coverage scenarios (%) | Total investment (95%UI) | Total benefit (95% UI) | Net profit (95% UI) | ROI rate (95% UI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| in million US$ | in million I$ | in million US$ | in million I$ | in million US$ | in million I$ | ||
| 30 | 600.30 (597.57; 603.04) | 1771.77 (1763.73; 1779.81) | 145.22 (143.52; 146.96) | 428.66 (423.57; 433.76) | 455.09 (451.78; 458.35) | 1343.11 (1333.45; 1352.76) | 325.4% (321.0; 329.9) |
| 50 | 998.48 (993.83; 1003.09) | 2946.89 (2933.26; 2960.53) | 231.87 (229.26; 234.43) | 684.38 (676.77; 691.99) | 766.57 (761.09; 761.09) | 2262.52 (2246.35;2278.68) | 342.5% (337.8; 347.2) |
| 70 | 1402.57 (1396.17; 1408.96) | 4139.60 (4120.76; 4158.45) | 323.09 (321.83; 325.70) | 949.66 (938.06; 961.26) | 1080.83 (1073.22; 1088.39) | 3189.94 (3167.50; 3212.38) | 349.6% (344.7; 354.6) |
| 80 | 1599.78 (1592.48; 1607.04) | 4721.61 (4700.09; 4743.13) | 365.48 (360.83; 370.17) | 1078.72 (1064.89; 1092.54) | 1234.26 (1225.70; 1242.87) | 3642.89 (3617.51; 3668.28) | 351.7% (346.8; 356.6) |
| 90 | 1792.96 (1785.00; 1800.87) | 5291.80 (5268.39; 5315.22) | 415.09 (409.00; 421.17) | 1225.10 (1207.16;1243.04) | 1377.87 (1367.70; 1388.04) | 4066.70 (4036.67; 4096.73) | 349.2% (344.0; 354.4) |
Abbreviations: 95% UI, 95% uncertainty interval; Screening coverage, proportion of the target population having FOBT test
Figure 2.Result of probabilistic sensitivity analysis in the case of screening 30% of the target population.
Figure 3.Result of probabilistic sensitivity analysis in the case of screening 90% of the target population.