A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Europe: Have Studies Included Optimal Screening Intensities?

Rajani Pokharel (), Yi-Shu Lin, Ethna McFerran and James F. O’Mahony
Additional contact information
Rajani Pokharel: Trinity College Dublin
Yi-Shu Lin: Trinity College Dublin
Ethna McFerran: Queen’s University Belfast
James F. O’Mahony: Trinity College Dublin

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2023, vol. 21, issue 5, No 3, 717 pages

Abstract: Abstract Objective To assess the range of strategies analysed in European cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with respect to the screening intervals, age ranges and test cut-offs used to define positivity, to examine how this might influence what strategies are found to be optimal, and compare them with the current screening policies with a focus on the screening interval. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for peer-reviewed, model-based CEAs of CRC screening. We included studies on average-risk European populations using the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or faecal immunochemical test (FIT). We adapted Drummond’s ten-point checklist to appraise study quality. Results We included 39 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Biennial screening was the most frequently used interval which was analysed in 37 studies. Annual screening was assessed in 13 studies, all of which found it optimally cost-effective. Despite this, 25 of 26 European stool-based programmes use biennial screening. Many CEAs did not vary the age range, but the 14 that did generally found broader ranges optimal. Only 11 studies considered alternative FIT cut-offs, 9 of which found lower cut-offs superior. Conflicts between current policy and CEA evidence are less clear regarding age ranges and cut-offs. Conclusions The existing CEA evidence indicates that the widely adopted biennial frequency of stool-based testing in Europe is suboptimal. It is likely that many more lives could be saved throughout Europe if programmes could be offered with more intensive annual screening.

Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00819-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00819-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00819-3

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().