Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography or fecal blood tests

Denis Heresbach (), Pauline Chauvin (), Jacques Grolier and Jean-Michel Josselin ()
Additional contact information
Denis Heresbach: CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Service d'hépato-gastro-entérologie [Rennes] = Gastroenterology [Rennes] - Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes [CHU Rennes] = Rennes University Hospital [Pontchaillou]
Jacques Grolier: CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Jean-Michel Josselin: CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using computed tomography colonography (CTC) and immunological fecal occult blood test (iFOBT). : CTC and iFOBT strategies were compared with Nn screening or guaiac FOBT (gFOBT) using Markov modeling. CTC was proposed at 50, 60, and 70 years, whereas gFOBT and iFOBT were performed every 2 years beginning at 50 years until 74 years of age with a 30-year time horizon. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and efficiency ratios (ERs). Then, we performed univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. : With gFOBT as reference, colorectal cancer prevention rate was 18% for CTC and 11% for iFOBT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTC and iFOBT were respectively 3204 and 5458€ per life years gained (LYG), the ER for CTC was 0.22 and the ER for iFOBT was 2.08 colonoscopies per LYG. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to CTC cost. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, compared with CTC, iFOBT strategy was cost-effective for 84.6% of simulations when we assumed a willingness to pay (WTP) of 20 000€/LYG. Conclusion: CTC requires substantially less colonoscopies than iFOBT and is cost-effective for low values of WTP. However, iFOBT is the preferred screening strategy for a WTP greater than 6207€/LYG.

Keywords: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; cost-effectiveness analysis; immunological fecal occult blood test; colorectal cancer screening; computed tomography colonoscopy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2010, 22 (11), pp.1372-1379. ⟨10.1097/MEG.0b013e32833eaa71⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:hal:journl:halshs-00559520

DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32833eaa71

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().