Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Screening in a European Country. A Comparison of Five Alternative Screening Strategies

Luís Lopes, M. Certo, Paula Veiga, J. Canena
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Screening in a European Country. A Comparison of Five Alternative Screening Strategies","authors":"Luís Lopes, M. Certo, Paula Veiga, J. Canena","doi":"10.26502/jsr.10020253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The implementation of an organized screening strategy should include a cost-effectiveness analysis for the governments to take decisions that promote health and better allocate resources which does not happen most of the times. This study aimed to evaluate the most cost-effective strategy for CRC screening in a European Country. Methods: A cost-effectiveness (CE) probabilistic Markov model was developed to compare the costs and the quality-adjusted life expectancy of 50-year-old average-risk individuals submitted to five alternative screening strategies based on colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT) and FIT, as well as no screening. We calculated the costs from the perspective of a third payer (Portuguese National Health Service) and populated the model with data from published literature. Probability of being cost-effective was estimated for different thresholds of willingness-to-pay. Results: Colonoscopy 3/10 years is the most cost-effective strategy for colorectal screening in Portugal, with an estimated ICER of 802 €/ QALY when compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. The FIT and CT colonography based strategies are dominated by colonoscopy-based strategies. Biennial FIT, the strategy currently being used in Portugal, showed the smallest gains in life years gained (498.3 days) the smallest reduction in the incidence of CRC (-37%) and the smallest reduction in CRC mortality (-57%) between all the screening strategies. The findings were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Colonoscopy based strategies offer the best value for the money in Portugal. Biennial FIT, the screening strategy in Portugal should be replaced by a colonoscopy-based strategy. Screening European Country. A Comparison of Five Alternative Screening Strategies.","PeriodicalId":73961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of surgery and research","volume":"198 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of surgery and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/jsr.10020253","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

Background: The implementation of an organized screening strategy should include a cost-effectiveness analysis for the governments to take decisions that promote health and better allocate resources which does not happen most of the times. This study aimed to evaluate the most cost-effective strategy for CRC screening in a European Country. Methods: A cost-effectiveness (CE) probabilistic Markov model was developed to compare the costs and the quality-adjusted life expectancy of 50-year-old average-risk individuals submitted to five alternative screening strategies based on colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT) and FIT, as well as no screening. We calculated the costs from the perspective of a third payer (Portuguese National Health Service) and populated the model with data from published literature. Probability of being cost-effective was estimated for different thresholds of willingness-to-pay. Results: Colonoscopy 3/10 years is the most cost-effective strategy for colorectal screening in Portugal, with an estimated ICER of 802 €/ QALY when compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. The FIT and CT colonography based strategies are dominated by colonoscopy-based strategies. Biennial FIT, the strategy currently being used in Portugal, showed the smallest gains in life years gained (498.3 days) the smallest reduction in the incidence of CRC (-37%) and the smallest reduction in CRC mortality (-57%) between all the screening strategies. The findings were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Colonoscopy based strategies offer the best value for the money in Portugal. Biennial FIT, the screening strategy in Portugal should be replaced by a colonoscopy-based strategy. Screening European Country. A Comparison of Five Alternative Screening Strategies.
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
欧洲国家结直肠筛查的成本效益。五种筛查策略的比较
背景:实施有组织的筛查战略应包括成本效益分析,以便政府作出促进健康和更好地分配资源的决定,而这在大多数情况下并不会发生。本研究旨在评估欧洲国家最具成本效益的CRC筛查策略。方法:建立成本-效果(CE)概率马尔可夫模型,比较50岁平均风险个体接受基于结肠镜检查、计算机断层扫描(CT)和FIT以及不进行筛查的五种替代筛查策略的成本和质量调整预期寿命。我们从第三支付方(葡萄牙国家卫生服务)的角度计算了成本,并用已发表文献的数据填充了模型。对不同的支付意愿阈值估计了具有成本效益的可能性。结果:在葡萄牙,3/10年的结肠镜检查是最具成本效益的结直肠筛查策略,与每10年的结肠镜检查相比,估计ICER为802€/ QALY。以FIT和CT结肠镜为基础的策略以结肠镜为基础的策略为主。目前在葡萄牙使用的两年期FIT策略显示,在所有筛查策略中,获得的生命年数最小(498.3天),CRC发病率降低最小(-37%),CRC死亡率降低最小(-57%)。结果对概率敏感性分析具有稳健性。结论:结肠镜检查为基础的策略提供了最好的价值在葡萄牙的钱。在葡萄牙,两年一次的FIT筛查策略应被结肠镜检查策略所取代。筛选欧洲国家。五种筛查策略的比较。
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
Modulation of Inflammatory Response by Electromagnetic Field Stimulation in Traumatic Brain Injury in Yucatan Swine. Understanding Fibrous Tissue in the Effective Healing of Rotator Cuff Injury. Critical Assessment of the Neurological Complications during High-Risk Anesthesia Procedures. Non-Tobacco Nicotine dependence associated with increased Postoperative Complications following Intramedullary Nailing for Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures. Health-Outcomes and Epidemiologic Research of Transgender Patients Requires Simple, Meaningful Diagnostic Codes: A Retrospective Review of California Emergency Department Visits.
×
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