Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goede, S. Lucas, Rabeneck, Linda, van Ballegooijen, Marjolein, Zauber, Ann G., Paszat, Lawrence F., Hoch, Jeffrey S., Yong, Jean H. E., Kroep, Sonja, Tinmouth, Jill, Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5351837/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28296927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172864
_version_ 1782514834455134208
author Goede, S. Lucas
Rabeneck, Linda
van Ballegooijen, Marjolein
Zauber, Ann G.
Paszat, Lawrence F.
Hoch, Jeffrey S.
Yong, Jean H. E.
Kroep, Sonja
Tinmouth, Jill
Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
author_facet Goede, S. Lucas
Rabeneck, Linda
van Ballegooijen, Marjolein
Zauber, Ann G.
Paszat, Lawrence F.
Hoch, Jeffrey S.
Yong, Jean H. E.
Kroep, Sonja
Tinmouth, Jill
Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
author_sort Goede, S. Lucas
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5351837
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53518372017-04-06 Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening Goede, S. Lucas Rabeneck, Linda van Ballegooijen, Marjolein Zauber, Ann G. Paszat, Lawrence F. Hoch, Jeffrey S. Yong, Jean H. E. Kroep, Sonja Tinmouth, Jill Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2017-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5351837/ /pubmed/28296927 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172864 Text en © 2017 Goede et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Goede, S. Lucas
Rabeneck, Linda
van Ballegooijen, Marjolein
Zauber, Ann G.
Paszat, Lawrence F.
Hoch, Jeffrey S.
Yong, Jean H. E.
Kroep, Sonja
Tinmouth, Jill
Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening
title Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening
title_full Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening
title_fullStr Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening
title_full_unstemmed Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening
title_short Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening
title_sort harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5351837/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28296927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172864
work_keys_str_mv AT goedeslucas harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT rabenecklinda harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT vanballegooijenmarjolein harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT zauberanng harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT paszatlawrencef harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT hochjeffreys harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT yongjeanhe harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT kroepsonja harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT tinmouthjill harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening
AT lansdorpvogelaariris harmsbenefitsandcostsoffecalimmunochemicaltestingversusguaiacfecaloccultbloodtestingforcolorectalcancerscreening