Literature DB >> 7498642

Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening.

D A Lieberman1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The relative efficacy and effectiveness of different colon screening programs has not been assessed. The purpose of this analysis was to provide a model for comparing several colon screening programs and to determine the key variables that impact program effectiveness.
METHODS: Five screening programs were compared: annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT) alone, flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT combined, one-time colonoscopy, and air-contrast barium enema. Key variables were adjusted for sensitivity analyses. Cost-effectiveness was defined as the cost per cancer death prevented.
RESULTS: FOBT alone prevents fewer cancer deaths than the other programs. The addition of flexible sigmoidoscopy to the FOBT increases the rate of cancer prevention. One-time colonoscopy has the greatest impact on colorectal cancer mortality, largely because of assumptions that cancer would be prevented in most patients who undergo polypectomy. FOBT alone is the most cost-effective of the programs, but the cost is sensitive to several key variables.
CONCLUSIONS: The model shows key variables that impact the cost-effectiveness of colon screening programs. Compliance is an important determinant of effectiveness of all of the screening programs. Future study should be focused on methods of patient education that improve patient compliance with screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7498642     DOI: 10.1016/0016-5085(95)90744-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  32 in total

Review 1.  The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Joel F Wallace; Scott R Weingarten; Chiun-Fang Chiou; James M Henning; Andriana A Hohlbauch; Margaret S Richards; Nicole S Herzog; Lior S Lewensztain; Joshua J Ofman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Colorectal cancer screening: now is the time.

Authors:  S J Winawer; A G Zauber
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-09-05       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  [Colorectal cancer in Germany. Means for prevention and early detection: implications for laiety and physicians].

Authors:  A Eickhoff; C Maar; B Birkner; J F Riemann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 4.  Colonoscopic screening for colon cancer.

Authors:  K A Forde
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-03-16       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Colorectal cancer screening 2000: the role of colonoscopy in average-risk individuals.

Authors:  W E Smalley; G M Eisen
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2000-10

6.  Non-radiological technique for 3D imaging of intestinal endoscopes: computerised graphical 3D representation of endoscope and skeleton.

Authors:  R S Rowland; G D Bell
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  The case for universal screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  James Smith
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2002

8.  Three-dimensional MR and axial CT colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for detection of colon pathologies.

Authors:  Rahime Haykir; Serdar Karakose; Aydin Karabacakoglu; Mustafa Sahin; Ertugrul Kayacetin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  A prediction model for colon cancer surveillance data.

Authors:  Norm M Good; Krithika Suresh; Graeme P Young; Trevor J Lockett; Finlay A Macrae; Jeremy M G Taylor
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 10.  Colorectal cancer screening in Europe: differences in approach; similar barriers to overcome.

Authors:  Nicholas J West; Christian Boustière; Wolfgang Fischbach; Fabrizio Parente; Roger J Leicester
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.