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

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

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

Auteur :

  • Pauline Chauvin
    (CREM – Centre de Recherche en Economie et Management – CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Université de Caen Basse-Normandie – UR1 – Université de Rennes 1)
  • Denis Heresbach (denis.heresbach@univ-rennes1.fr) (CREM – Centre de Recherche en Economie et Management – CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Université de Caen Basse-Normandie – UR1 – Université de Rennes 1, Service de Gastroentérologie – Hôpital Pontchaillou)
  • Jacques Grolier (CREM – Centre de Recherche en Economie et Management – CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Université de Caen Basse-Normandie – UR1 – Université de Rennes 1)
  • Jean-Michel Josselin (CREM – Centre de Recherche en Economie et Management – CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Université de Caen Basse-Normandie – UR1 – Université de Rennes 1)

Extrait

Denis Heresbach & Pauline Chauvin & Jacques Grolier & Jean-Michel Josselin, 2010. « Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography or fecal blood tests, » Post-Print halshs-00559520, HAL.

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.

 

Télécharger le document de travail
ADRESSE
45 rue des Saints Pères - 75006 Paris
TELEPHONE & MAIL
01 42 86 20 71 - liraes@parisdescartes.fr


logo_liraes

Back to Top