[Occupational medicine insight into Swiss forestry].

J. Buchberger,V. Butora

1979-09-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

[Cost-Effectiveness Analysis on Colorectal Cancer Screening Program].

Q C Huang,D Ye,X Y Jiang,Q L Li,K Y Yao,J B Wang,M J Jin,K Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2017.01.012

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening program in different age groups from the view of health economics. Methods: The screening compliance rates, detection rates in different age groups were calculated by using the data from colorectal cancer screening program in Jiashan county, Zhejiang province. The differences in indicator among age groups were analyzed with χ(2) test or trend χ(2) test. The ratios of cost to the number of case were calculated according to cost statistics. Results: The detection rates of immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) positivity, advanced adenoma and colorectal cancer and early stage cancer increased with age, while the early diagnosis rates were negatively associated with age. After exclusion the younger counterpart, the cost-effectiveness of individuals aged >50 years could be reduced by 15%-30%. Conclusion: From health economic perspective, it is beneficial to start colorectal cancer screening at age of 50 years to improve the efficiency of the screening.
Cost-utility of colorectal cancer screening at 40 years old for average-risk patients

Nilofer S Azad,Ira L Leeds,Waruguru Wanjau,Eun J Shin,William V Padula

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106003

2020-01-27

Abstract:The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in patients under the age of 50. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-utility of available screening modalities starting at 40 years in the general population compared to standard screening at 50 years old. A decision tree modeling average-risk of CRC in the United States population was constructed for the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of the five most common and effective CRC screening modalities in average-risk 40-year olds versus deferring screening until 50 years old (standard of care) under a limited societal perspective. All parameters were derived from existing literature. We evaluated the incremental cost-utility ratio of each comparator at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY and included multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis. All screening modalities assessed were more cost-effective with increased QALYs than current standard care (no screening until 50). The most favorable intervention by net monetary benefit was flexible sigmoidoscopy ($3284 per person). Flexible sigmoidoscopy, FOBT, and FIT all dominated the current standard of care. Colonoscopy and FIT-DNA were both cost-effective (respectively, $4777 and $11,532 per QALY). The cost-effective favorability of flexible sigmoidoscopy diminished relative to colonoscopy with increasing willingness-to-pay. Regardless of screening modality, CRC screening at 40 years old is cost-effective with increased QALYs compared to current screening initiation at 50 years old, with flexible sigmoidoscopy most preferred. Consideration should be given for a general recommendation to start screening at age 40 for average risk individuals.
Plasma cysteine concentrations in infants with respiratory distress.

C. White,S. Stabler,R. Allen,S. Moreland,A. Rosenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(06)80182-4

IF: 2.99

1994-11-01

Jornal de Pediatria

Abstract:
Would initiating colorectal cancer screening from age of 45 be cost-effective in Germany? An individual-level simulation analysis

Min Wai Lwin,Chih-Yuan Cheng,Silvia Calderazzo,Christoph Schramm,Michael Schlander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1307427

IF: 5.2

2024-02-21

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to be effective and cost-saving. However, the trend of rising incidence of early-onset CRC challenges the current national screening program solely for people ≥50 years in Germany, where extending the screening to those 45–49 years might be justified. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies starting at 45 years in Germany. Method: DECAS, an individual-level simulation model accounting for both adenoma and serrated pathways of CRC development and validated with German CRC epidemiology and screening effects, was used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Four CRC screening strategies starting at age 45, including 10-yearly colonoscopy (COL), annual/biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), or the combination of the two, were compared with the current screening offer starting at age 50 years in Germany. Three adherence scenarios were considered: perfect adherence, current adherence, and high screening adherence. For each strategy, a cohort of 100,000 individuals with average CRC risk was simulated from age 20 until 90 or death. Outcomes included CRC cases averted, prevented death, quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), and total incremental costs considering both CRC treatment and screening costs. A 3% discount rate was applied and costs were in 2023 Euro. Result: Initiating 10-yearly colonoscopy-only or combined FIT + COL strategies at age 45 resulted in incremental gains of 7–28 QALYs with incremental costs of €28,360–€71,759 per 1,000 individuals, compared to the current strategy. The ICER varied from €1,029 to €9,763 per QALYG, and the additional number needed for colonoscopy ranged from 129 to 885 per 1,000 individuals. Among the alternatives, a three times colonoscopy strategy starting at 45 years of age proves to be the most effective, while the FIT-only strategy was dominated by the currently implemented strategy. The findings remained consistent across probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness findings support initiating CRC screening at age 45 with either colonoscopy alone or combined with FIT, demonstrating substantial gains in quality-adjusted life-years with a modest increase in costs. Our findings emphasize the importance of implementing CRC screening 5 years earlier than the current practice to achieve more significant health and economic benefits.

public, environmental & occupational health
The cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based colorectal cancer screening offerings from age 45 for a commercial and medicare population

Derek Ebner,John Kisiel,Lianne Barnieh,Rishika Sharma,Nathaniel J Smith,Chris Estes,Vahab Vahdat,A Burak Ozbay,Paul Limburg,A Mark Fendrick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2023.2260681

Abstract:Aim: The United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recently recommended lowering the age for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45 years. While initiating screening at age 45 versus 50 provides a greater opportunity for CRC early detection and prevention, the full profile of benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of expanding the screen-eligible population requires further evaluation. Materials and methods: The costs and clinical outcomes for screening at age 45 for triennial multi-target stool DNA [mt-sDNA], and other non-invasive stool-based modalities (annual fecal immunochemical test [FIT] and annual fecal-occult blood test [FOBT]), were estimated using the validated CRC-AIM microsimulation model over a lifetime horizon. Test sensitivity and specificity inputs were based on 2021 USPSTF modeling analyses; adherence rates were based on published real-world data and the costs of the screening test, follow-up colonoscopies, complications, and CRC care were included. Outcomes are reported from the perspective of a United States payer as clinical, life-years gained (LYG), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); stool-based and follow-up colonoscopy adherence ranges were explored in one-way, probabilistic and threshold analyses. Results: When compared to initiation of CRC screening at age 45 versus 50, all modalities reduced both the incidence of and mortality from CRC and increased LYG. Initiating CRC screening at age 45 was cost-effective with an ICER of $59,816 and $35,857 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for mt-sDNA versus FIT and FOBT, respectively. In the threshold analyses, at equivalent rates to stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was always cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY versus FIT and FOBT. Conclusions: Initiating average-risk CRC screening at age 45 instead of age 50 increases the estimated clinical benefit by reducing disease burden while remaining cost-effective. Among stool-based screening modalities, mt-sDNA provides the most clinical benefit in a Commercial and Medicare population.
Colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years in Israel: Cost‐effectiveness and global implications

Elizabeth E. Half,Zohar Levi,Ajitha Mannalithara,Moshe Leshno,Irit Ben‐Aharon,Naim Abu‐Freha,Barbara Silverman,Uri Ladabaum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35097

IF: 6.9209

2024-01-07

Cancer

Abstract:Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence at ages <50 years is increasing worldwide. Screening initiation was lowered to 45 years in the United States. The cost‐effectiveness of initiating CRC screening at 45 years in Israel was assessed with the aim of informing national policy and addressing internationally relevant questions. Methods A validated CRC screening model was calibrated to Israeli data and examined annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy every 10 years from 45 to 74 years (FIT45‐74 or Colo45‐74) versus from 50 to 74 years (FIT50‐74 or Colo50‐74). The addition of a fourth colonoscopy at 75 years was explored, subanalyses were performed by sex/ethnicity, and resource demands were estimated. Results FIT50‐74 and Colo50‐74 reduced CRC incidence by 57% and 70% and mortality by 70% and 77%, respectively, versus no screening, with greater absolute impact in Jews/Other versus Arabs but comparable relative impact. FIT45‐74 further reduced CRC incidence and mortality by an absolute 3% and 2%, respectively. With Colo45‐74 versus Colo50‐74, CRC cases and deaths increased slightly as three colonoscopies per lifetime shifted to 5 years earlier but mean quality‐adjusted life‐years gained (QALYGs) per person increased. FIT45‐74 and Colo45‐74 cost 23,800–53,900 new Israeli shekels (NIS)/QALYG and 110,600–162,700 NIS/QALYG, with the lowest and highest values among Jewish/Other men and Arab women, respectively. A fourth lifetime colonoscopy cost 48,700 NIS/QALYG. Lowering FIT initiation to 45 years with modest participation required 19,300 additional colonoscopies in the first 3 years. Conclusions Beginning CRC screening at 45 years in Israel is projected to yield modest clinical benefits at acceptable costs per QALYG. Despite different estimates by sex/ethnicity, a uniform national policy is favored. These findings can inform Israeli guidelines and serve as a case study internationally.

oncology
Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Age and Gender: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Martin C. S. Wong,Jessica Y. L. Ching,Victor C. W. Chan,Thomas Y. T. Lam,Arthur K. C. Luk,Sunny H. Wong,Siew C. Ng,Simon S. M. Ng,Justin C. Y. Wu,Francis K. L. Chan,Joseph J. Y. Sung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000002739

IF: 13.576

2015-01-01

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract:We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.
Lowering the colorectal cancer screening age improves predicted outcomes in a microsimulation model

Deborah A Fisher,Leila Saoud,Lila J Finney Rutten,A Burak Ozbay,Durado Brooks,Paul J Limburg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2021.1908244

Abstract:Aims: While most guidelines still recommend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiation at age 50 years in average-risk individuals, guideline-creating bodies are starting to lower the recommended age of initiation to 45 years to mitigate the trend of increasing CRC rates in younger populations. Using CRC-AIM, we modeled the impact of lowering the CRC screening initiation age, incorporating theoretical and reported adherence rates, for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. Methods and materials: Screening strategies were simulated for individuals without CRC at age 40 and screened from ages 50 to 75 or 45 to 75 years. Outcomes included CRC incidence, CRC mortality, and life-years gained (LYG) per 1000 individuals screened (compared with no screening). Models used theoretically perfect (100%) and previously reported (71% mt-sDNA; 43% FIT) adherence rates. Results: With perfect adherence, mt-sDNA and FIT resulted in 22.2 and 23.4 more predicted LYG, respectively, with screening initiation at age 45 versus 50 years; reported adherence resulted in 23.9 and 24.4 more LYG, respectively. With perfect adherence, screening initiation at age 45 versus 50 years resulted in 26.1 and 28.6 CRC cases, respectively, with mt-sDNA and 22.8 and 25.5 cases with FIT; with reported real-world adherence there were 28.5 and 31.2 cases, respectively, with mt-sDNA and 37.1 and 40.2 cases with FIT. Similar patterns were observed for CRC deaths. With screening initiation at age 45 and reported adherence, mt-sDNA averted 8.6 more CRC cases and 3.3 more deaths per 1000 individuals than FIT. Conclusions: Estimated CRC screening outcomes improved by lowering the initiation age from 50 to 45 years. Incorporating reported adherence rates yields greater benefits from triennial mt-sDNA versus annual FIT screening.
Impact of revising colorectal cancer screening guidelines on health care resources in Canada.

Brendan Chia,Yibing Ruan,Carl J. Brown,Darren R Brenner,Jonathan M. Loree

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.78

IF: 45.3

2024-01-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:78 Background: The rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) has prompted U.S. organizations to lower the recommended CRC screening age for average risk adults from 50 to 45 years old, while Canadian programs remain unchanged. Canadian guidelines also differ from the U.S. in preferentially screening with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and recommending against colonoscopies as a screening test. Differences in national healthcare administration warrants investigation into the resource impact of updating screening guidance in Canada. Methods: Microsimulation modeling was performed using OncoSim (version 3.6) to project health and economic outcomes of different CRC screening strategies based on Canadian population data. Four simulated birth cohorts of the Canadian population born between 1973–1992 were tracked for a 40-year span from the year the oldest in each cohort turned 40 until the youngest in the same cohort turned 75. Colorectal adenoma rates were adjusted according to cohort risk ratios estimated from historical incidence data to reflect real-world CRC rates. Outcomes were reported for the cumulative cohort. Results: Compared to FIT screening at age 50, FIT screening at 45 reduced deaths by 5,220, incidence by 11,980, and added 96,100 health-adjusted life years (HALY). Colonoscopy screening at age 45 led to 17,870 fewer deaths, 74,250 fewer cases and added 314,960 HALYs. FIT and colonoscopy screening at age 45 had incremental costs of CAD$3,259 and $7,881 per HALY gained vs. a FIT at age 50, respectively. Across screening strategies, the greatest benefits were observed in the youngest cohort. Colonoscopy screening at age 45 resulted in 10,679,540 more total colonoscopies than the current capacity of 8,966,979 with FIT screening at age 50. Lowering the screening age to 45 with a FIT increased colonoscopy demand by 329,555. The total cost of CRC care (screening, diagnosis and treatment) increased with lower screening ages and colonoscopy first modalities, while the cost of CRC management (diagnosis and treatment) decreased with lower screening ages and colonoscopy first approaches. Conclusions: Adjusting current CRC screening guidelines demonstrates significant resource implications with proportional health benefits. Lower screening ages and colonoscopy first approaches have the largest resource demand and greatest health outcomes, while the incremental cost per HALY gained for all screening strategies is modest compared to standard benchmarks. [Table: see text]

oncology
Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies

Ravi N Sharaf,Uri Ladabaum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.380

Abstract:Objectives: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy are proven to decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Sigmoidoscopy's benefit is limited to the distal colon. Observational data are conflicting regarding the degree to which colonoscopy affords protection against proximal CRC. Our aim was to explore the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative CRC screening strategies in light of the latest published data. Methods: We performed a contemporary cost-utility analysis using a Markov model validated against data from randomized controlled trials of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy. Persons at average CRC risk within the general US population were modeled. Screening strategies included those recommended by the United States (US) Preventive Services Task Force, including colonoscopy every 10 years (COLO), flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years (FS), annual fecal occult blood testing, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and the combination FS/FIT. The main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Results: In the base case, FIT dominated other strategies. The advantage of FIT over FS and COLO was contingent on rates of uptake and adherence that are well above current US rates. Compared with FIT, FS and COLO both cost <$50,000/QALY gained when FIT per-cycle adherence was <50%. COLO cost $56,800/QALY gained vs. FS in the base case. COLO cost <$100,000/QALY gained vs. FS when COLO yielded a relative risk of proximal CRC of <0.5 vs. no screening. In probabilistic analyses, COLO was cost-effective vs. FS at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY gained in 84% of iterations. Conclusions: Screening colonoscopy may be cost-effective compared with FIT and sigmoidoscopy, depending on the relative rates of screening uptake and adherence and the protective benefit of colonoscopy in the proximal colon. Colonoscopy's cost-effectiveness compared with sigmoidoscopy is contingent on the ability to deliver ~50% protection against CRC in the proximal colon.
Optimizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies and Target Populations in Budget-Constrained Regions through Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Case from China's East

Hao Li,Yao‐Shi Fu,Ao Xu,Peng Zhang,Weibing Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3217334/v1

2023-01-01

Abstract:Abstract Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the top three cancers globally in terms of morbidity and mortality. For middle-income countries planning to implement regional screening programs, conducting a preliminary assessment to identify individuals at a higher risk of CRC before proceeding with a colonoscopy can be more cost-effective. Methods: We employed a microsimulation model to assess the impact of various preliminary assessment strategies. Simulations were conducted to identify the optimal age for initiating and ending screening. Results: The primary data were sourced from the Huzhou screening program, which included 418,805 individuals from 2020 to 2022. All screening strategies were found to be effective, with the cost per incremental Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) being less than $1,026, which is below the minimum standard for upper-middle-income countries. The most effective screening strategy was the annual combined two-sample Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test (i-FOBT) and risk evaluation questionnaires. This approach led to a reduction in CRC incidence and related deaths by 2435 and 1174 cases per 100,000 individuals, respectively, and an increase in Life Years Saved (LYS) by 13903 years and QALYs by 35564 years. The recommended ages to begin and end screening were 48 and 72 years, respectively. Conclusions: All CRC screening strategies demonstrated effectiveness compared to non-screening, with the annual combined two-sample i-FOBT and risk evaluation questionnaires emerging as the optimal approach. For additional regions, the best screening strategy can be selected based on the health outcomes and costs we have provided.
Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Individuals With Cystic Fibrosis for Colorectal Cancer

Andrea Gini,Ann G Zauber,Dayna R Cenin,Amir-Houshang Omidvari,Sarah E Hempstead,Aliza K Fink,Albert B Lowenfels,Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.011

IF: 29.4

2017-12-27

Gastroenterology

Abstract:Background & aims: Individuals with cystic fibrosis are at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to the general population, and risk is higher among those who received an organ transplant. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine optimal CRC screening strategies for patients with cystic fibrosis. Methods: We adjusted the existing Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon microsimulation model to reflect increased CRC risk and lower life expectancy in patients with cystic fibrosis. Modeling was performed separately for individuals who never received an organ transplant and patients who had received an organ transplant. We modeled 76 colonoscopy screening strategies that varied the age range and screening interval. The optimal screening strategy was determined based on a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per life-year gained. Sensitivity and supplementary analyses were performed, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an alternative test, earlier ages of transplantation, and increased rates of colonoscopy complications, to assess whether optimal screening strategies would change. Results: Colonoscopy every 5 years, starting at age 40 years, was the optimal colonoscopy strategy for patients with cystic fibrosis who never received an organ transplant; this strategy prevented 79% of deaths from CRC. Among patients with cystic fibrosis who had received an organ transplant, optimal colonoscopy screening should start at an age of 30 or 35 years, depending on the patient's age at time of transplantation. Annual FIT screening was predicted to be cost-effective for patients with cystic fibrosis. However, the level of accuracy of the FIT in population is not clear. Conclusions: Using a Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon microsimulation model, we found screening of patients with cystic fibrosis for CRC to be cost-effective. Due to the higher risk in these patients for CRC, screening should start at an earlier age with a shorter screening interval. The findings of this study (especially those on FIT screening) may be limited by restricted evidence available for patients with cystic fibrosis.
Cost Effectiveness of Screening Individuals With Cystic Fibrosis for Colorectal Cancer

Andrea Gini,Ann G Zauber,Dayna R Cenin,Amir-Houshang Omidvari,Sarah E Hempstead,Aliza K Fink,Albert B Lowenfels,Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.10.036

IF: 29.4

Gastroenterology

Abstract:Background & aims: Individuals with cystic fibrosis are at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with the general population, and risk is higher among those who received an organ transplant. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine optimal CRC screening strategies for patients with cystic fibrosis. Methods: We adjusted the existing Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model to reflect increased CRC risk and lower life expectancy in patients with cystic fibrosis. Modeling was performed separately for individuals who never received an organ transplant and patients who had received an organ transplant. We modeled 76 colonoscopy screening strategies that varied the age range and screening interval. The optimal screening strategy was determined based on a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per life-year gained. Sensitivity and supplementary analyses were performed, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an alternative test, earlier ages of transplantation, and increased rates of colonoscopy complications, to assess if optimal screening strategies would change. Results: Colonoscopy every 5 years, starting at an age of 40 years, was the optimal colonoscopy strategy for patients with cystic fibrosis who never received an organ transplant; this strategy prevented 79% of deaths from CRC. Among patients with cystic fibrosis who had received an organ transplant, optimal colonoscopy screening should start at an age of 30 or 35 years, depending on the patient's age at time of transplantation. Annual FIT screening was predicted to be cost-effective for patients with cystic fibrosis. However, the level of accuracy of the FIT in this population is not clear. Conclusions: Using a Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model, we found screening of patients with cystic fibrosis for CRC to be cost effective. Because of the higher risk of CRC in these patients, screening should start at an earlier age with a shorter screening interval. The findings of this study (especially those on FIT screening) may be limited by restricted evidence available for patients with cystic fibrosis.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

Robert Benamouzig,Stéphanie Barré,Jean-Christophe Saurin,Henri Leleu,Alexandre Vimont,Sabrine Taleb,Frédéric De Bels

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848211002359

2021-01-01

Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology

Abstract: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.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening

S Lucas Goede,Linda Rabeneck,Marjolein van Ballegooijen,Ann G Zauber,Lawrence F Paszat,Jeffrey S Hoch,Jean H E Yong,Sonja Kroep,Jill Tinmouth,Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172864

IF: 3.7

2017-03-15

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: The ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50-74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms. Methods: We used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity. Results: Compared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50-74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50-74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45-80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300. Interpretation: Compared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Disease Prevention -- A Case Study on Colorectal Cancer Screening

Yi Xiong,Kwun C G Chan,Malka Gorfine,Li Hsu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.02888

2024-09-05

Abstract:Cancer Screening has been widely recognized as an effective strategy for preventing the disease. Despite its effectiveness, determining when to start screening is complicated, because starting too early increases the number of screenings over lifetime and thus costs but starting too late may miss the cancer that could have been prevented. Therefore, to make an informed recommendation on the age to start screening, it is necessary to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the gain in life years relative to the cost of screenings. As more large-scale observational studies become accessible, there is growing interest in evaluating cost-effectiveness based on empirical evidence. In this paper, we propose a unified measure for evaluating cost-effectiveness and a causal analysis for the continuous intervention of screening initiation age, under the multi-state modeling with semi-competing risks. Extensive simulation results show that the proposed estimators perform well in realistic scenarios. We perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the colorectal cancer screening, utilizing data from the large-scale Women's Health Initiative. Our analysis reveals that initiating screening at age 50 years yields the highest quality-adjusted life years with an acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to no screening, providing real-world evidence in support of screening recommendation for colorectal cancer.

Methodology,Applications
The comparative cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical test vs. colonoscopy

Martin C S Wong,Jessica Y L Ching,Victor C W Chan,Joseph J Y Sung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13568

2015-09-04

Abstract:Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and colonoscopy are two common screening tools for colorectal cancer(CRC). Most cost-effectiveness studies focused on survival as the outcome, and were based on modeling techniques instead of real world observational data. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these two tests to detect colorectal neoplastic lesions based on data from a 5-year community screening service. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was assessed based on the detection rates of neoplastic lesions, and costs including screening compliance, polypectomy, colonoscopy complications, and staging of CRC detected. A total of 5,863 patients received yearly FIT and 4,869 received colonoscopy. Compared with FIT, colonoscopy detected notably more adenomas (23.6% vs. 1.6%) and advanced lesions or cancer (4.2% vs. 1.2%). Using FIT as control, the ICER of screening colonoscopy in detecting adenoma, advanced adenoma, CRC and a composite endpoint of either advanced adenoma or stage I CRC was US$3,489, US$27,962, US$922,762 and US$23,981 respectively. The respective ICER was US$3,597, US$439,513, -US$2,765,876 and US$32,297 among lower-risk subjects; whilst the corresponding figure was US$3,153, US$14,852, US$184,162 and US$13,919 among higher-risk subjects. When compared to FIT, colonoscopy is considered cost-effective for screening adenoma, advanced neoplasia, and a composite endpoint of advanced neoplasia or stage I CRC.
From Concepts to Practice? Set-up of a Panel Discussion

A. A. Verrijn-Stuart

1992-04-13

Abstract:
Real-world cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening in a Medicare population

Deborah A. Fisher,Jordan J. Karlitz,Sushanth Jeyakumar,Nathaniel Smith,Paul Limburg,David Lieberman,A. Mark Fendrick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2021.1922240

2021-01-01

Journal of Medical Economics

Abstract:<span>Multiple screening strategies are guideline-endorsed for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC). The impact of real-world adherence rates on the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based CRC screening strategies remains undefined.This cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Medicare as a primary payer used the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC–AIM) to estimate cost and clinical outcomes for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening strategies in a simulated cohort of US adults aged 65 years, who were assumed to either be previously unscreened or initiating screening upon entry to Medicare. Reported real-world adherence rates for initial stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow up (after a positive stool test result) were defined as 71.1% and 73.0% for mt-sDNA, 42.6% and 47.0% for FIT, and 33.4% and 47.0% for FOBT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was defined as the primary outcome of interest; other cost and clinical outcomes were also reported in secondary analyses. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.When reported real-world adherence rates were included only for initial stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was cost-effective versus FIT ($62,814/QALY) and FOBT ($39,171/QALY); mt-sDNA also yielded improved clinical outcomes. When reported real-world adherence rates were included for both initial stool-based screening and follow-up colonoscopy (when indicated), mt-sDNA was increasingly cost-effective compared to FIT and FOBT ($31,725/QALY and $28,465/QALY, respectively), with further improved clinical outcomes.Results are based on real-world cross-sectional adherence rates and may vary in the context of other types of settings. Only guideline-recommended stool-based strategies were considered in this analysis.Comparisons of the effectiveness and benefits of specific CRC screening strategies should include both test-specific performance characteristics and real-world adherence to screening tests and, when indicated, follow-up colonoscopy.</span>

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
A critical-layer framework for turbulent pipe flow

B. McKeon,Ati S. Sharma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002211201000176X

IF: 3.7

2010-01-18

Journal of Fluid Mechanics

Abstract:A model-based description of the scaling and radial location of turbulent fluctuations in turbulent pipe flow is presented and used to illuminate the scaling behaviour of the very large scale motions. The model is derived by treating the nonlinearity in the perturbation equation (involving the Reynolds stress) as an unknown forcing, yielding a linear relationship between the velocity field response and this nonlinearity. We do not assume small perturbations. We examine propagating helical velocity response modes that are harmonic in the wall-parallel directions and in time, permitting comparison of our results to experimental data. The steady component of the velocity field that varies only in the wall-normal direction is identified as the turbulent mean profile. A singular value decomposition of the resolvent identifies the forcing shape that will lead to the largest velocity response at a given wavenumber–frequency combination. The hypothesis that these forcing shapes lead to response modes that will be dominant in turbulent pipe flow is tested by using physical arguments to constrain the range of wavenumbers and frequencies to those actually observed in experiments. An investigation of the most amplified velocity response at a given wavenumber–frequency combination reveals critical-layer-like behaviour reminiscent of the neutrally stable solutions of the Orr–Sommerfeld equation in linearly unstable flow. Two distinct regions in the flow where the influence of viscosity becomes important can be identified, namely wall layers that scale with R+1/2 and critical layers where the propagation velocity is equal to the local mean velocity, one of which scales with R+2/3 in pipe flow. This framework appears to be consistent with several scaling results in wall turbulence and reveals a mechanism by which the effects of viscosity can extend well beyond the immediate vicinity of the wall. The model reproduces inner scaling of the small scales near the wall and an approach to outer scaling in the flow interior. We use our analysis to make a first prediction that the appropriate scaling velocity for the very large scale motions is the centreline velocity, and show that this is in agreement with experimental results. Lastly, we interpret the wall modes as the motion required to meet the wall boundary condition, identifying the interaction between the critical and wall modes as a potential origin for an interaction between the large and small scales that has been observed in recent literature as an amplitude modulation of the near-wall turbulence by the very large scales.

[Occupational medicine insight into Swiss forestry].

[Cost-Effectiveness Analysis on Colorectal Cancer Screening Program].

Cost-utility of colorectal cancer screening at 40 years old for average-risk patients

Plasma cysteine concentrations in infants with respiratory distress.

Would initiating colorectal cancer screening from age of 45 be cost-effective in Germany? An individual-level simulation analysis

The cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based colorectal cancer screening offerings from age 45 for a commercial and medicare population

Colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years in Israel: Cost‐effectiveness and global implications

Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Age and Gender: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Lowering the colorectal cancer screening age improves predicted outcomes in a microsimulation model

Impact of revising colorectal cancer screening guidelines on health care resources in Canada.

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies

Optimizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies and Target Populations in Budget-Constrained Regions through Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Case from China's East

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Individuals With Cystic Fibrosis for Colorectal Cancer

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Individuals With Cystic Fibrosis for Colorectal Cancer

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Disease Prevention -- A Case Study on Colorectal Cancer Screening

The comparative cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical test vs. colonoscopy

From Concepts to Practice? Set-up of a Panel Discussion

Real-world cost-effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer screening in a Medicare population

A critical-layer framework for turbulent pipe flow