Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Sep;11(9):1158-66.
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.03.013. Epub 2013 Mar 28.

Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of a hybrid screening strategy for colorectal cancer

Affiliations

Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of a hybrid screening strategy for colorectal cancer

Tuan Dinh et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Sep.

Abstract

Background & aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend screening schedules for each single type of test except for concurrent sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood test (FOBT). We investigated the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid screening strategy that was based on a fecal immunological test (FIT) and colonoscopy.

Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis by using the Archimedes Model to evaluate the effects of different CRC screening strategies on health outcomes and costs related to CRC in a population that represents members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The Archimedes Model is a large-scale simulation of human physiology, diseases, interventions, and health care systems. The CRC submodel in the Archimedes Model was derived from public databases, published epidemiologic studies, and clinical trials.

Results: A hybrid screening strategy led to substantial reductions in CRC incidence and mortality, gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and reductions in costs, comparable with those of the best single-test strategies. Screening by annual FIT of patients 50-65 years old and then a single colonoscopy when they were 66 years old (FIT/COLOx1) reduced CRC incidence by 72% and gained 110 QALYs for every 1000 people during a period of 30 years, compared with no screening. Compared with annual FIT, FIT/COLOx1 gained 1400 QALYs/100,000 persons at an incremental cost of $9700/QALY gained and required 55% fewer FITs. Compared with FIT/COLOx1, colonoscopy at 10-year intervals gained 500 QALYs/100,000 at an incremental cost of $35,100/QALY gained but required 37% more colonoscopies. Over the ranges of parameters examined, the cost-effectiveness of hybrid screening strategies was slightly more sensitive to the adherence rate with colonoscopy than the adherence rate with yearly FIT. Uncertainties associated with estimates of FIT performance within a program setting and sensitivities for flat and right-sided lesions are expected to have significant impacts on the cost-effectiveness results.

Conclusions: In our simulation model, a strategy of annual or biennial FIT, beginning when patients are 50 years old, with a single colonoscopy when they are 66 years old, delivers clinical and economic outcomes similar to those of CRC screening by single-modality strategies, with a favorable impact on resources demand.

Keywords: COLO; CORI; CRC; Cancer Screening; Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative; Comparative; Cost-utility Analysis; Effectiveness; FIT; FIT/COLOx1; FOBT; FS; ICER; KPNC; Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Mixed Screening Strategy; QALY; SEER; SIG; Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results; TPMG; The Permanente Medical Group; annual fecal immunological test and colonoscopy at age 66; colonoscopy alone; colorectal cancer; fecal immunological test; fecal occult blood test; flexible sigmoidoscopy; gFOBT; guaiac-based fecal occult blood test; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; quality-adjusted life year; sigmoidoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in