Cargando…
Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis
BACKGROUND: Regional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of prevention, screening and treatment interventions for colorectal cancer are presented. METHODS: Standardised WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. A colorectal cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening and treatment effect...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850877/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20236531 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-8-2 |
_version_ | 1782179812214833152 |
---|---|
author | Ginsberg, Gary M Lim, Stephen S Lauer, Jeremy A Johns, Benjamin P Sepulveda, Cecilia R |
author_facet | Ginsberg, Gary M Lim, Stephen S Lauer, Jeremy A Johns, Benjamin P Sepulveda, Cecilia R |
author_sort | Ginsberg, Gary M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Regional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of prevention, screening and treatment interventions for colorectal cancer are presented. METHODS: Standardised WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. A colorectal cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening and treatment effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness was determined via a population state-transition model (PopMod) that simulates the evolution of a sub-regional population accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Economic costs of procedures and treatment were estimated, including programme overhead and training costs. RESULTS: In regions characterised by high income, low mortality and high existing treatment coverage, the addition of screening to the current high treatment levels is very cost-effective, although no particular intervention stands out in cost-effectiveness terms relative to the others. In regions characterised by low income, low mortality with existing treatment coverage around 50%, expanding treatment with or without screening is cost-effective or very cost-effective. Abandoning treatment in favour of screening (no treatment scenario) would not be cost effective. In regions characterised by low income, high mortality and low treatment levels, the most cost-effective intervention is expanding treatment. CONCLUSIONS: From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, screening programmes should be expanded in developed regions and treatment programmes should be established for colorectal cancer in regions with low treatment coverage. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2850877 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-28508772010-04-08 Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis Ginsberg, Gary M Lim, Stephen S Lauer, Jeremy A Johns, Benjamin P Sepulveda, Cecilia R Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: Regional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of prevention, screening and treatment interventions for colorectal cancer are presented. METHODS: Standardised WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. A colorectal cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening and treatment effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness was determined via a population state-transition model (PopMod) that simulates the evolution of a sub-regional population accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Economic costs of procedures and treatment were estimated, including programme overhead and training costs. RESULTS: In regions characterised by high income, low mortality and high existing treatment coverage, the addition of screening to the current high treatment levels is very cost-effective, although no particular intervention stands out in cost-effectiveness terms relative to the others. In regions characterised by low income, low mortality with existing treatment coverage around 50%, expanding treatment with or without screening is cost-effective or very cost-effective. Abandoning treatment in favour of screening (no treatment scenario) would not be cost effective. In regions characterised by low income, high mortality and low treatment levels, the most cost-effective intervention is expanding treatment. CONCLUSIONS: From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, screening programmes should be expanded in developed regions and treatment programmes should be established for colorectal cancer in regions with low treatment coverage. BioMed Central 2010-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC2850877/ /pubmed/20236531 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-8-2 Text en Copyright ©2010 Ginsberg et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Ginsberg, Gary M Lim, Stephen S Lauer, Jeremy A Johns, Benjamin P Sepulveda, Cecilia R Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis |
title | Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis |
title_full | Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis |
title_fullStr | Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis |
title_short | Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis |
title_sort | prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850877/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20236531 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-8-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ginsberggarym preventionscreeningandtreatmentofcolorectalcanceraglobalandregionalgeneralizedcosteffectivenessanalysis AT limstephens preventionscreeningandtreatmentofcolorectalcanceraglobalandregionalgeneralizedcosteffectivenessanalysis AT lauerjeremya preventionscreeningandtreatmentofcolorectalcanceraglobalandregionalgeneralizedcosteffectivenessanalysis AT johnsbenjaminp preventionscreeningandtreatmentofcolorectalcanceraglobalandregionalgeneralizedcosteffectivenessanalysis AT sepulvedaceciliar preventionscreeningandtreatmentofcolorectalcanceraglobalandregionalgeneralizedcosteffectivenessanalysis |