Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Epidemiologic Reviews (Impact Factor: 6.67). 06/2011; 33(1):88-100. DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxr004
Source: PubMed


Colorectal cancer is an important public health problem. Several screening methods have been shown to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. The objective of this review was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different colorectal cancer screening methods and to determine the preferred method from a cost-effectiveness point of view. Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the lists of technology assessments of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) were searched for cost-effectiveness analyses published in English between January 1993 and December 2009. Fifty-five publications relating to 32 unique cost-effectiveness models were identified. All studies found that colorectal cancer screening was cost-effective or even cost-saving compared with no screening. However, the studies disagreed as to which screening method was most effective or had the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a given willingness to pay per life-year gained. There was agreement among studies that the newly developed screening tests of stool DNA testing, computed tomographic colonography, and capsule endoscopy were not yet cost-effective compared with the established screening options.

1 Follower
11 Reads
  • Source
    • "Apart from yield and participation, costs have to be considered in the selection of a screening test. Recently doubts were raised about the cost-effectiveness of CT colonography compared with established screening techniques [2]. A modelling study estimated that CT colonography costs should not exceed 43 % of colonoscopy costs to be cost-effective [3]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Radiographers have been shown to be capable CT colonography observers. We evaluated whether radiographers can be trained to triage screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings. METHODS: Eight radiographers participated in a structured training program. They subsequently evaluated extracolonic findings in 280 low-dose CT colonograms (cases). This dataset contained 66 cases with possibly important findings (E3) and 27 cases with probably important findings (E4) [classification based on the highest classified finding (C-RADS)]. The first 40 and last 40 CT colonograms were identical test cases. Immediate feedback was given after each reading, except for test cases. Radiographers triaged cases based on C-RADS classification and indicated the need for a radiologist read. We constructed learning curves for correct case triaging by calculating moving averages. RESULTS: In the final test series, 84/120 (70 %) cases with E3 or E4 findings and 139/200 (70 %) without E3 or E4 findings were correctly triaged. Correct identification of cases with E3 findings improved with training from 46/88 (52 %) to 62/88 (70 %) (P < 0.0001) but not for E4 findings [both 22/32 (69 %) P = 1.00]. CONCLUSIONS: Radiographers improve after training in correctly triaging extracolonic findings at CT colonography but do not reach a high enough accuracy to consider their structural involvement in screening. KEY POINTS: • Radiographers were trained to triage CT colonography for extracolonic findings. • After training, radiographers improved sensitivity for likely unimportant findings. • After training, radiographers did not improve sensitivity for possibly important findings. • Radiographers should probably not be expected to identify all extracolonic findings.
    European Radiology 07/2012; 22(12). DOI:10.1007/s00330-012-2541-z · 4.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This product is part of the RAND Health working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers'latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND Health but have not been formally edited or peer reviewed. Unless otherwise indicated, working papers can be quoted and cited without permission of the author, provided the source is clearly referred to as a working paper. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. is a registered trademark.

  • American journal of epidemiology 06/2011; 174(2):127-8. DOI:10.1093/aje/kwr080 · 5.23 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications


11 Reads
Available from