Cargando…
Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review
AIMS: Gastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, but the burden of disease is not distributed evenly. GC screening routinely occurs in some high-incidence regions/countries and is generally cost-effective, which is attributed largely to the associated GC mortality redu...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32728390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1756284820941662 |
_version_ | 1783560212011024384 |
---|---|
author | Canakis, Andrew Pani, Ethan Saumoy, Monica Shah, Shailja C. |
author_facet | Canakis, Andrew Pani, Ethan Saumoy, Monica Shah, Shailja C. |
author_sort | Canakis, Andrew |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: Gastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, but the burden of disease is not distributed evenly. GC screening routinely occurs in some high-incidence regions/countries and is generally cost-effective, which is attributed largely to the associated GC mortality reduction. In regions of low–intermediate incidence, less is known about the outcomes of GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance, including cost-effectiveness, since there are no comparative clinical studies. Decision analytic studies are informative in such instances where logistical limitations preclude “gold standard” study designs. We therefore aimed to conduct a systematic review of decision model analyses focused on endoscopic GC screening or precancer surveillance. METHODS: We identified decision model analyses, including cost effectiveness and cost utility studies, of GC screening or preneoplasia surveillance. At minimum, articles were evaluated for: study country; analytic design; population and health states; time horizon; model assumptions; outcomes; threshold value(s) for “cost-effective” determination; and sensitivity analyses. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Drummond’s analytic scoring system. Data sources were PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library RESULTS: We identified 17 studies (8 screening, 4 surveillance, and 5 screening and surveillance) that met full inclusion criteria. Endoscopic screening in countries of high GC incidence was cost-effective across all studies; targeted screening of high-risk populations within otherwise low-intermediate incidence countries was also generally cost-effective. Surveillance of gastric precancer, including atrophic gastritis or gastric intestinal metaplasia, was generally cost-effective. Most studies had high appraisal scores, with 4 (24%) studies achieving perfect scores on the Drummond scale. CONCLUSION: Decision model analyses offer a unique mechanism with which to efficiently explore the cost benefit of various prevention and early detection strategies. Based on this comprehensive systematic review, upper endoscopy for GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance might be cost-effective depending on the population and protocol. Focused efforts are especially needed not only to define the optimal approach, but also to define the populations within otherwise low-intermediate regions/countries who might benefit most. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7366398 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73663982020-07-28 Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review Canakis, Andrew Pani, Ethan Saumoy, Monica Shah, Shailja C. Therap Adv Gastroenterol Systematic Review AIMS: Gastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, but the burden of disease is not distributed evenly. GC screening routinely occurs in some high-incidence regions/countries and is generally cost-effective, which is attributed largely to the associated GC mortality reduction. In regions of low–intermediate incidence, less is known about the outcomes of GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance, including cost-effectiveness, since there are no comparative clinical studies. Decision analytic studies are informative in such instances where logistical limitations preclude “gold standard” study designs. We therefore aimed to conduct a systematic review of decision model analyses focused on endoscopic GC screening or precancer surveillance. METHODS: We identified decision model analyses, including cost effectiveness and cost utility studies, of GC screening or preneoplasia surveillance. At minimum, articles were evaluated for: study country; analytic design; population and health states; time horizon; model assumptions; outcomes; threshold value(s) for “cost-effective” determination; and sensitivity analyses. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Drummond’s analytic scoring system. Data sources were PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library RESULTS: We identified 17 studies (8 screening, 4 surveillance, and 5 screening and surveillance) that met full inclusion criteria. Endoscopic screening in countries of high GC incidence was cost-effective across all studies; targeted screening of high-risk populations within otherwise low-intermediate incidence countries was also generally cost-effective. Surveillance of gastric precancer, including atrophic gastritis or gastric intestinal metaplasia, was generally cost-effective. Most studies had high appraisal scores, with 4 (24%) studies achieving perfect scores on the Drummond scale. CONCLUSION: Decision model analyses offer a unique mechanism with which to efficiently explore the cost benefit of various prevention and early detection strategies. Based on this comprehensive systematic review, upper endoscopy for GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance might be cost-effective depending on the population and protocol. Focused efforts are especially needed not only to define the optimal approach, but also to define the populations within otherwise low-intermediate regions/countries who might benefit most. SAGE Publications 2020-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7366398/ /pubmed/32728390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1756284820941662 Text en © The Author(s), 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Canakis, Andrew Pani, Ethan Saumoy, Monica Shah, Shailja C. Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review |
title | Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer
screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review |
title_full | Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer
screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer
screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer
screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review |
title_short | Decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer
screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review |
title_sort | decision model analyses of upper endoscopy for gastric cancer
screening and preneoplasia surveillance: a systematic review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32728390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1756284820941662 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT canakisandrew decisionmodelanalysesofupperendoscopyforgastriccancerscreeningandpreneoplasiasurveillanceasystematicreview AT paniethan decisionmodelanalysesofupperendoscopyforgastriccancerscreeningandpreneoplasiasurveillanceasystematicreview AT saumoymonica decisionmodelanalysesofupperendoscopyforgastriccancerscreeningandpreneoplasiasurveillanceasystematicreview AT shahshailjac decisionmodelanalysesofupperendoscopyforgastriccancerscreeningandpreneoplasiasurveillanceasystematicreview |