Colorectal cancer screening comparing no screening, immunochemical and guaiac fecal occult blood tests: A cost‐effectiveness analysis

Comparability of cost‐effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies is limited if heterogeneous study data are combined. We analyzed prospective empirical data from a randomized‐controlled trial to compare cost‐effectiveness of screening with either one round of immunochemical fecal...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of cancer 2011-04, Vol.128 (8), p.1908-1917
Hauptverfasser: van Rossum, Leo G.M., van Rijn, Anne F., Verbeek, Andre L.M., van Oijen, Martijn G.H., Laheij, Robert J.F., Fockens, Paul, Jansen, Jan B.M.J., Adang, Eddy M.M., Dekker, Evelien
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Comparability of cost‐effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies is limited if heterogeneous study data are combined. We analyzed prospective empirical data from a randomized‐controlled trial to compare cost‐effectiveness of screening with either one round of immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (I‐FOBT; OC‐Sensor®), one round of guaiac FOBT (G‐FOBT; Hemoccult‐II®) or no screening in Dutch aged 50 to 75 years, completed with cancer registry and literature data, from a third‐party payer perspective in a Markov model with first‐ and second‐order Monte Carlo simulation. Costs were measured in Euros (€), effects in life‐years gained, and both were discounted with 3%. Uncertainty surrounding important parameters was analyzed. I‐FOBT dominated the alternatives: after one round of I‐FOBT screening, a hypothetical person would on average gain 0.003 life‐years and save the health care system €27 compared with G‐FOBT and 0.003 life years and €72 compared with no screening. Overall, in 4,460,265 Dutch aged 50–75 years, after one round I‐FOBT screening, 13,400 life‐years and €320 million would have been saved compared with no screening. I‐FOBT also dominated in sensitivity analyses, varying uncertainty surrounding important effect and cost parameters. CRC screening with I‐FOBT dominated G‐FOBT and no screening with or without accounting for uncertainty.
ISSN:0020-7136
1097-0215
DOI:10.1002/ijc.25530