Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals
Background and aims: Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population. Methods: Eight screening...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2021-04-01
|
Series: | Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848211002359 |
id |
doaj-041754d5f02e4230afc4ebeca93d3be2 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-041754d5f02e4230afc4ebeca93d3be22021-04-11T22:33:54ZengSAGE PublishingTherapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology1756-28482021-04-011410.1177/17562848211002359Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individualsRobert BenamouzigStéphanie BarréJean-Christophe SaurinHenri LeleuAlexandre VimontSabrine TalebFrédéric De BelsBackground and aims: Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population. Methods: Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually. Results: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY ( versus no screening) and €3100/QALY ( versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy ( versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening. Conclusion: At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives. Plain Language Summary Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history. Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years. Colonoscopy every 3–5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost–effectiveness ratio. Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848211002359 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Robert Benamouzig Stéphanie Barré Jean-Christophe Saurin Henri Leleu Alexandre Vimont Sabrine Taleb Frédéric De Bels |
spellingShingle |
Robert Benamouzig Stéphanie Barré Jean-Christophe Saurin Henri Leleu Alexandre Vimont Sabrine Taleb Frédéric De Bels Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |
author_facet |
Robert Benamouzig Stéphanie Barré Jean-Christophe Saurin Henri Leleu Alexandre Vimont Sabrine Taleb Frédéric De Bels |
author_sort |
Robert Benamouzig |
title |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals |
title_short |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals |
title_full |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals |
title_fullStr |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals |
title_full_unstemmed |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals |
title_sort |
cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals |
publisher |
SAGE Publishing |
series |
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |
issn |
1756-2848 |
publishDate |
2021-04-01 |
description |
Background and aims: Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population. Methods: Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually. Results: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY ( versus no screening) and €3100/QALY ( versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy ( versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening. Conclusion: At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives. Plain Language Summary Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history. Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years. Colonoscopy every 3–5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost–effectiveness ratio. Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848211002359 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT robertbenamouzig costeffectivenessanalysisofalternativecolorectalcancerscreeningstrategiesinhighriskindividuals AT stephaniebarre costeffectivenessanalysisofalternativecolorectalcancerscreeningstrategiesinhighriskindividuals AT jeanchristophesaurin costeffectivenessanalysisofalternativecolorectalcancerscreeningstrategiesinhighriskindividuals AT henrileleu costeffectivenessanalysisofalternativecolorectalcancerscreeningstrategiesinhighriskindividuals AT alexandrevimont costeffectivenessanalysisofalternativecolorectalcancerscreeningstrategiesinhighriskindividuals AT sabrinetaleb costeffectivenessanalysisofalternativecolorectalcancerscreeningstrategiesinhighriskindividuals AT fredericdebels costeffectivenessanalysisofalternativecolorectalcancerscreeningstrategiesinhighriskindividuals |
_version_ |
1721530542955954176 |