Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening in China, and that when the screening was implemented in a specific region. METHODS: A 13-state Markov model was established to compare four screening protocols, including annual fecal immunochemical te...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ren, Yinan, Zhao, Mingye, Zhou, Dachuang, Xing, Qian, Gong, Fangfang, Tang, Wenxi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9412186/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36033786
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.952378
_version_ 1784775432510373888
author Ren, Yinan
Zhao, Mingye
Zhou, Dachuang
Xing, Qian
Gong, Fangfang
Tang, Wenxi
author_facet Ren, Yinan
Zhao, Mingye
Zhou, Dachuang
Xing, Qian
Gong, Fangfang
Tang, Wenxi
author_sort Ren, Yinan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening in China, and that when the screening was implemented in a specific region. METHODS: A 13-state Markov model was established to compare four screening protocols, including annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT1), biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT2), electronic colonoscopy every 10 years (e-CSPY10), and electronic colonoscopy every 5 years (e-CSPY5), with no screening from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The model simulated the health states of a cohort of 100,000 average-risk individuals aging from 50 to 75. Additionally, scenarios including the implementation in a specific region, starting from 40, and incompletely successful treatment of cancer were also analyzed. RESULTS: Annual and biennial FIT could save 8.13USD (US Dollar) and 44.96USD per person, and increase 0.0705QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) and 0.2341 QALYs compared with no screening, respectively. Annual FIT could decrease costs by 36.81USD per person and increase 0.1637 QALYs in comparison to biennial FIT. The results showed that both annual and biennial FIT for screening were dominant over no screening, and annual FIT was dominant over biennial FIT. The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) for e-CSPY10 were 1183.51USD/QALY and 536.66USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. The ICER for e-CSPY5 were 1158.16USD/QALY and 770.85USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. And the ICER for e-CSPY5 relative to e-CSPY10 was 358.71USD/QALY. All the ICER values were lower than the economic threshold of 2021 Chinese GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita in 2021(12554.42USD). CONCLUSIONS: It is worthwhile to popularize CRC screening in mainland China, as FIT always saving costs and colonoscopy is cost-effective. Regions with high income can take electronic colonoscopy every 10 years, or even every 5 years into consideration when determining the specific strategies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9412186
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94121862022-08-27 Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China Ren, Yinan Zhao, Mingye Zhou, Dachuang Xing, Qian Gong, Fangfang Tang, Wenxi Front Public Health Public Health OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening in China, and that when the screening was implemented in a specific region. METHODS: A 13-state Markov model was established to compare four screening protocols, including annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT1), biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT2), electronic colonoscopy every 10 years (e-CSPY10), and electronic colonoscopy every 5 years (e-CSPY5), with no screening from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The model simulated the health states of a cohort of 100,000 average-risk individuals aging from 50 to 75. Additionally, scenarios including the implementation in a specific region, starting from 40, and incompletely successful treatment of cancer were also analyzed. RESULTS: Annual and biennial FIT could save 8.13USD (US Dollar) and 44.96USD per person, and increase 0.0705QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) and 0.2341 QALYs compared with no screening, respectively. Annual FIT could decrease costs by 36.81USD per person and increase 0.1637 QALYs in comparison to biennial FIT. The results showed that both annual and biennial FIT for screening were dominant over no screening, and annual FIT was dominant over biennial FIT. The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) for e-CSPY10 were 1183.51USD/QALY and 536.66USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. The ICER for e-CSPY5 were 1158.16USD/QALY and 770.85USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. And the ICER for e-CSPY5 relative to e-CSPY10 was 358.71USD/QALY. All the ICER values were lower than the economic threshold of 2021 Chinese GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita in 2021(12554.42USD). CONCLUSIONS: It is worthwhile to popularize CRC screening in mainland China, as FIT always saving costs and colonoscopy is cost-effective. Regions with high income can take electronic colonoscopy every 10 years, or even every 5 years into consideration when determining the specific strategies. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-08-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9412186/ /pubmed/36033786 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.952378 Text en Copyright © 2022 Ren, Zhao, Zhou, Xing, Gong and Tang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Public Health
Ren, Yinan
Zhao, Mingye
Zhou, Dachuang
Xing, Qian
Gong, Fangfang
Tang, Wenxi
Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China
title Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China
title_full Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China
title_short Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China
title_sort cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in china
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9412186/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36033786
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.952378
work_keys_str_mv AT renyinan costeffectivenessanalysisofcolonoscopyandfecalimmunochemicaltestingforcolorectalcancerscreeninginchina
AT zhaomingye costeffectivenessanalysisofcolonoscopyandfecalimmunochemicaltestingforcolorectalcancerscreeninginchina
AT zhoudachuang costeffectivenessanalysisofcolonoscopyandfecalimmunochemicaltestingforcolorectalcancerscreeninginchina
AT xingqian costeffectivenessanalysisofcolonoscopyandfecalimmunochemicaltestingforcolorectalcancerscreeninginchina
AT gongfangfang costeffectivenessanalysisofcolonoscopyandfecalimmunochemicaltestingforcolorectalcancerscreeninginchina
AT tangwenxi costeffectivenessanalysisofcolonoscopyandfecalimmunochemicaltestingforcolorectalcancerscreeninginchina