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
Comparative Study
. 2015 Sep 4:5:13568.
doi: 10.1038/srep13568.

The comparative cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical test vs. colonoscopy

Affiliations
Comparative Study

The comparative cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical test vs. colonoscopy

Martin C S Wong et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and colonoscopy are two common screening tools for colorectal cancer(CRC). Most cost-effectiveness studies focused on survival as the outcome, and were based on modeling techniques instead of real world observational data. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these two tests to detect colorectal neoplastic lesions based on data from a 5-year community screening service. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was assessed based on the detection rates of neoplastic lesions, and costs including screening compliance, polypectomy, colonoscopy complications, and staging of CRC detected. A total of 5,863 patients received yearly FIT and 4,869 received colonoscopy. Compared with FIT, colonoscopy detected notably more adenomas (23.6% vs. 1.6%) and advanced lesions or cancer (4.2% vs. 1.2%). Using FIT as control, the ICER of screening colonoscopy in detecting adenoma, advanced adenoma, CRC and a composite endpoint of either advanced adenoma or stage I CRC was US$3,489, US$27,962, US$922,762 and US$23,981 respectively. The respective ICER was US$3,597, US$439,513, -US$2,765,876 and US$32,297 among lower-risk subjects; whilst the corresponding figure was US$3,153, US$14,852, US$184,162 and US$13,919 among higher-risk subjects. When compared to FIT, colonoscopy is considered cost-effective for screening adenoma, advanced neoplasia, and a composite endpoint of advanced neoplasia or stage I CRC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sung J. J., Lau J. Y., Goh K. L., Leung W. K. & Asia Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer. Increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in Asia: implications for screening. Lancet Oncol. 6, 871–876 (2005). - PubMed
    1. Hospital Authority: Hong Kong Cancer Registry. Available at: www3.ha.org.hk/cancereg/statistics.html (Accessed: 16th November 2013)
    1. Wong C. K. et al. Direct medical costs of care for Chinese patients with colorectal neoplasia: a health care service provider perspective. J Eval Clin Pract. 18, 1203–1210 (2012). - PubMed
    1. Mandel J. S., Church T. R., Ederer F. & Bond J. H. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst. 91, 434–437 (1999). - PubMed
    1. Nishihara R. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 369, 1095–1105 (2013). - PMC - PubMed

Publication types