Cargando…

Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of one-time standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining for esophageal cancer (EC) in China. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yuanyuan, Du, Lingbin, Wang, Youqing, Gu, Yuxuan, Zhen, Xuemei, Hu, Xiaoqian, Sun, Xueshan, Dong, Hengjin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7488134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-020-00230-y
_version_ 1783581631751127040
author Li, Yuanyuan
Du, Lingbin
Wang, Youqing
Gu, Yuxuan
Zhen, Xuemei
Hu, Xiaoqian
Sun, Xueshan
Dong, Hengjin
author_facet Li, Yuanyuan
Du, Lingbin
Wang, Youqing
Gu, Yuxuan
Zhen, Xuemei
Hu, Xiaoqian
Sun, Xueshan
Dong, Hengjin
author_sort Li, Yuanyuan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of one-time standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining for esophageal cancer (EC) in China. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six age groups in five-year intervals. Three different strategies were adopted for each cohort: (1) no screening; (2) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining with an annual follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN); and (3) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) indicated the effectiveness of the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation indicator. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: One-time screening with follow-up was the undominated strategy for individuals aged 40–44 and 45–49 years, which saved USD 10,942.57 and USD 6611.73 per QALY gained compared to nonscreening strategy. For those aged 50–69 years, the nonscreening scenarios were undominated. One-time screening without follow-up was the extended dominated strategy. Compared to screening strategies without follow-up, all the screening strategies with follow-up were more cost-effective, with the ICER increasing from 299.57 USD/QALY for individuals aged 40–44 years to 1617.72 USD/QALY for individuals aged 65–69 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) supported the results of the base case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: One-time EC screening with follow-up targeting individuals aged 40–49 years was the most cost-effective strategy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7488134
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74881342020-09-16 Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China Li, Yuanyuan Du, Lingbin Wang, Youqing Gu, Yuxuan Zhen, Xuemei Hu, Xiaoqian Sun, Xueshan Dong, Hengjin Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of one-time standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining for esophageal cancer (EC) in China. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six age groups in five-year intervals. Three different strategies were adopted for each cohort: (1) no screening; (2) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining with an annual follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN); and (3) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) indicated the effectiveness of the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation indicator. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: One-time screening with follow-up was the undominated strategy for individuals aged 40–44 and 45–49 years, which saved USD 10,942.57 and USD 6611.73 per QALY gained compared to nonscreening strategy. For those aged 50–69 years, the nonscreening scenarios were undominated. One-time screening without follow-up was the extended dominated strategy. Compared to screening strategies without follow-up, all the screening strategies with follow-up were more cost-effective, with the ICER increasing from 299.57 USD/QALY for individuals aged 40–44 years to 1617.72 USD/QALY for individuals aged 65–69 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) supported the results of the base case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: One-time EC screening with follow-up targeting individuals aged 40–49 years was the most cost-effective strategy. BioMed Central 2020-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7488134/ /pubmed/32944005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-020-00230-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Li, Yuanyuan
Du, Lingbin
Wang, Youqing
Gu, Yuxuan
Zhen, Xuemei
Hu, Xiaoqian
Sun, Xueshan
Dong, Hengjin
Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China
title Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China
title_full Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China
title_fullStr Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China
title_full_unstemmed Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China
title_short Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China
title_sort modeling the cost-effectiveness of esophageal cancer screening in china
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7488134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-020-00230-y
work_keys_str_mv AT liyuanyuan modelingthecosteffectivenessofesophagealcancerscreeninginchina
AT dulingbin modelingthecosteffectivenessofesophagealcancerscreeninginchina
AT wangyouqing modelingthecosteffectivenessofesophagealcancerscreeninginchina
AT guyuxuan modelingthecosteffectivenessofesophagealcancerscreeninginchina
AT zhenxuemei modelingthecosteffectivenessofesophagealcancerscreeninginchina
AT huxiaoqian modelingthecosteffectivenessofesophagealcancerscreeninginchina
AT sunxueshan modelingthecosteffectivenessofesophagealcancerscreeninginchina
AT donghengjin modelingthecosteffectivenessofesophagealcancerscreeninginchina