OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by two faecal occult blood tests (FOBT)-namely, Hemoccult (guaiac based) and reversed passive haemagglutination (RPHA) tests. RPHA was interpreted according to two positivity thresholds (+ or +/-). METHODS: Attenders performed both tests. Subjects with a positive FOBT test were invited to have a complete exploration of the colon. The total costs for every 10,000 screened subjects and costs for each unit of result (screened subject, or patient with adenoma/s or cancer detected) were calculated for both tests. RESULTS: 8353 subjects were enrolled. A total of 2109 repeated screening after two years. RPHA(+ and +/-) showed the highest and RPHA(+) the lowest positivity rate at first screening. The Hemoccult positivity rate was highest at repeat screening. Total costs of screening by RPHA(+ and +/-) were highest as this method had the highest recall rate. Screening by RPHA(+) was the least costly. Costs for each screened subject were highest for RPHA(+ and +/-) and lowest for RPHA(+). Costs for each cancer detected were lowest for RPHA(+) and highest for Hemoccult or RPHA(+ and +/-) in subjects aged > 49 or < 50, respectively. Costs for subjects with detected adenoma/s of > 9 mm were lowest for RPHA(+ and +/-) and highest for Hemoccult. At repeat screening total costs of RPHA(+ and +/-) were lower than at first screening, whereas for each subject with cancer or adenoma/s costs were increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that screening by RPHA is more cost effective than by Hemoccult.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by two faecal occult blood tests (FOBT)-namely, Hemoccult (guaiac based) and reversed passive haemagglutination (RPHA) tests. RPHA was interpreted according to two positivity thresholds (+ or +/-). METHODS: Attenders performed both tests. Subjects with a positive FOBT test were invited to have a complete exploration of the colon. The total costs for every 10,000 screened subjects and costs for each unit of result (screened subject, or patient with adenoma/s or cancer detected) were calculated for both tests. RESULTS: 8353 subjects were enrolled. A total of 2109 repeated screening after two years. RPHA(+ and +/-) showed the highest and RPHA(+) the lowest positivity rate at first screening. The Hemoccult positivity rate was highest at repeat screening. Total costs of screening by RPHA(+ and +/-) were highest as this method had the highest recall rate. Screening by RPHA(+) was the least costly. Costs for each screened subject were highest for RPHA(+ and +/-) and lowest for RPHA(+). Costs for each cancer detected were lowest for RPHA(+) and highest for Hemoccult or RPHA(+ and +/-) in subjects aged > 49 or < 50, respectively. Costs for subjects with detected adenoma/s of > 9 mm were lowest for RPHA(+ and +/-) and highest for Hemoccult. At repeat screening total costs of RPHA(+ and +/-) were lower than at first screening, whereas for each subject with cancer or adenoma/s costs were increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that screening by RPHA is more cost effective than by Hemoccult.
Authors: Vicent Hernandez; Joaquin Cubiella; M Carmen Gonzalez-Mao; Felipe Iglesias; Concepción Rivera; M Begoña Iglesias; Lucía Cid; Ines Castro; Luisa de Castro; Pablo Vega; Jose Antonio Hermo; Ramiro Macenlle; Alfonso Martínez-Turnes; David Martínez-Ares; Pamela Estevez; Estela Cid; M Carmen Vidal; Angeles López-Martínez; Elisabeth Hijona; Marta Herreros-Villanueva; Luis Bujanda; Jose Ignacio Rodriguez-Prada Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Clarence K W Wong; Richard N Fedorak; Connie I Prosser; Marianne E Stewart; Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Daniel C Sadowski Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: S Ciatto; F Martinelli; G Castiglione; P Mantellini; T Rubeca; G Grazzini; A G Bonanomi; M Confortini; M Zappa Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-01-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: L Hol; J A Wilschut; M van Ballegooijen; A J van Vuuren; H van der Valk; J C I Y Reijerink; A C M van der Togt; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; M E van Leerdam Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: G Grazzini; C B Visioli; M Zorzi; S Ciatto; F Banovich; A G Bonanomi; A Bortoli; G Castiglione; L Cazzola; M Confortini; P Mantellini; T Rubeca; M Zappa Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: G Castiglione; C B Visioli; S Ciatto; G Grazzini; A G Bonanomi; T Rubeca; P Mantellini; M Zappa Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-04-24 Impact factor: 7.640