Intensive follow-up for colorectal cancer is cost-effective

Björn Ohlsson MD, PhD (Commentary Author)
{"title":"Intensive follow-up for colorectal cancer is cost-effective","authors":"Björn Ohlsson MD, PhD (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Is intensive follow-up after curative resection for colorectal cancer cost-effective compared with conventional follow-up methods?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis based on a meta-analysis of 5 RCTs.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>Over 5 years, people having intensive follow-up gained 0.73 to 0.82 life years compared with conventional follow-up (absolute reduction in mortality with intensive follow-up: all trials 7%; 95% CI 5% to 9%; extramural trials only 9%; 95% CI 7% to 11%). Additional costs incurred by intensive follow-up were £3402 per life year gained (or £3077 based on extramural trials only). The net costs per person were £2479 and £2529, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>Intensive follow-up of people with colorectal cancer is cost-effective compared to conventional methods, based on a robust economic model and efficacy evidence from 5 RCTs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 186-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.019","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462941004000993","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Question

Is intensive follow-up after curative resection for colorectal cancer cost-effective compared with conventional follow-up methods?

Study design

Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis based on a meta-analysis of 5 RCTs.

Main results

Over 5 years, people having intensive follow-up gained 0.73 to 0.82 life years compared with conventional follow-up (absolute reduction in mortality with intensive follow-up: all trials 7%; 95% CI 5% to 9%; extramural trials only 9%; 95% CI 7% to 11%). Additional costs incurred by intensive follow-up were £3402 per life year gained (or £3077 based on extramural trials only). The net costs per person were £2479 and £2529, respectively.

Authors’ conclusions

Intensive follow-up of people with colorectal cancer is cost-effective compared to conventional methods, based on a robust economic model and efficacy evidence from 5 RCTs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结直肠癌的强化随访具有成本效益
问与传统的随访方法相比,癌症根治性切除后的强化随访是否具有成本效益?研究设计基于5项随机对照试验的荟萃分析的增量成本效益分析。主要结果在5年内,与常规随访相比,接受强化随访的人增加了0.73至0.82个生命年(强化随访的死亡率绝对降低:所有试验7%;95%置信区间5%至9%;壁外试验仅9%;95%置信度7%至11%)。强化随访产生的额外费用为每个生命年增加3402英镑(或仅根据体外试验增加3077英镑)。人均净成本分别为2479英镑和2529英镑。作者的结论:根据一个稳健的经济模型和来自5个随机对照试验的疗效证据,与传统方法相比,对癌症结直肠癌患者进行强化随访具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
High-quality nutrition counselling for hypercholesterolemia by public health nurses in rural areas does not affect total blood cholesterol No association between mobile phone usage and development of acoustic neuroma Retaplase plus abciximab improves non-fatal outcomes, but not overall survival in people with diabetes and acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction Intravenous magnesium sulphate does not improve survival or disability outcomes in people with stroke Rate of major complications is higher in laparoscopic than abdominal hysterectomy but quality of life improves with both procedures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1