Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 1, 2001 - Issue 2
Submit an article Journal homepage
12
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

The cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer

Ralph Crott EORTC Health Economics Unit, Avenue E. Mounier 83, bte. 11, B 1200 Brussels, Belgium. [email protected]
Pages 157-166 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

  • Cancer Facts and Figures 2001, Arnerrian Cancer Society Atlanta, USA, (accessed 10 Sept. 2001).
  • Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer Statistics 2000. CA Cancer 1 Clin. 50(1), 7–33 (2000).
  • Winaver SJ, Fletcher RII, Miller L etalColorectal Cancer Screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology113,594-642 (1997). Reference classical US guidelines.
  • Eddy DM. The cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. In: Frontiers in Gastrointestinal Cancer Levin B, Riddell H (Eds.). Elsevier, New York, USA (1984).
  • •One of the first formulary studies.
  • Castiglione G, Zappa M, Grazzini G etal Cost analysis in a population based screening programme for colorectal cancer: comparison of immunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood testing. j Med. Screen. 4, 142–146 (1997).
  • Nakama H, Zhang B, Fattah A. A cost- effective analysis of the optimum number of stool specimens collected for immunochemical occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Eui: j Cancer 36, 647–650 (2000).
  • Yamamoto M, Nakama H. Cost- effectiveness analysis of immunochemical occult blood screening for colorectal cancer among three fecal sampling methods. Hepatogastroenterology47(32), 396–399 (2000).
  • Bini EJ, Rajapaksa RC, Weinshel EH. The findings and impact of nonrehydratedguaiac examination of the rectum (FINGER) study: a comparison of 2 methods of screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk patients. Arch. Int. Med. 159(17), 2022–2026 (1999).
  • Sieg A, Hertel A, John MR, Luthgens K,Schmidt-Gayk H. Screening for colorectal neoplasms with a new immunological human faecal haemoglobin and albumin test. Eur. Cancer Rev 7 (4), 279–285 (1998).
  • Mansmann U. A loss-effectiveness analysis of risk-adapted surveillance after colorectal polypectomy. Stud. Health 7chnol. Inform. 77,395-398 (2000).
  • Staib L, link KH, Beger HG. Follow-up incolorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis of established and novel concepts. Langenbecks Azrh. Sing. 385(6), 412–420 (2000).
  • SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1973-1998, National Cancer Institute, (2001).
  • De Vita (Ed.). Fecal Occult Blood testing In: Cancer' principles and Practices of Oncology CD-Rom version, 6th edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, chapter 33.7, (2001).
  • BRFSS 1999 Summary Prevalence Report, CDC, Atlanta, (2001).
  • Rex DK, Sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, which way are we headed? Am. J. Gastroenerol 95,1116–1118 (2000).
  • AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 5th ed,Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, USA (1997).
  • Gillespie JS, Kelly BE. Double Contrast Barium Enema and colorectal carcinoma sensitivity and potential role in screening, Ulster Med 70(1), 15–18 (2001).
  • De Vita (Ed.), Cancer' Principles and Practices of Oncology CD-Rom version, 6th edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, chapter 33.7, (2001).
  • Whynes DK, Neilson AR, Walker AR eta].Faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: is it cost-effective? Health Ron. 7, 21–29 (1998).
  • ••Clinical trial-based FOBT studies.
  • Gyrd-Hansen D. Faecal Occult Blood Tests: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Int. J. Technol Assess. Health Cate 14(2), 290–301 (1998).
  • ••Clinical trial case study of FOBT.
  • Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson METE etal. Randomized controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectalcancer. Lancet 348,1472–1477 (1996).
  • Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR etal. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl. Med 328,1365–1371 (1993).
  • Kronborg 0, Fenger C, Olsen J etalRandomized study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet348, 1467–1471 (1996).
  • Tazi MA, Faivre J, Dassonville F, Lamour J, Milan C, Durand G. Participation in faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer in a well defmed French population: results of five screening rounds from 1988 to 1996../. Med. Saren. 4(3), 147–151 (1997).
  • Day NE, Walter SD. Simplified models forscreening for chronic disease: estimation procedures for mass screening programmes. Biometrics 40,1–14 (1984).
  • Gyrd-Hansen D, Holund B, Andersen P A cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer screening: health policy implications. Health Policy34, 35–51 (1995).
  • Lurie JD, Welch HG. Diagnostic testing following fecal occult blood screening in the elderly. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 91 (19), 1641–1646 (1999).
  • Cow J. Costs of screening for colorectal cancer: an Australian programme. Health Econ. 8,531–540 (1999).
  • Eddy DM. Screening for colorectal cancer.Ann. Int. Med. 113,373–384 (1990).
  • Office of Technology Assessment. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. U.S. Congress report No OTA-BP-H-146. OTA, Washington DC, USA (1995).
  • Wagner JL, Tunis S, Brown M et al. Cost- effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. In:Prevention and Early Detection of colorectalCancer Young GP, Rozen P, Levin B (Eds.), WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia, USA 321–356 (1996).
  • ••The basic reports of the OTA studies.
  • Lieberman DA. Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology 109,1781–1790 (1995).
  • Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J, Kronborg 0.Colorectal cancer screening; efficiency and effectiveness. Health Econ. 7,9-20 (1998).
  • Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Bauerfeind P. Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer? Arn. I Gastroenterol 94(8), 2268–2274 (1999).
  • Loeve F, Brown MB, Boer R, eta]. Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: a cost-saving analysis, 2000. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92,557-563 (2000).
  • ••Example of the Monte-Carlo model.
  • Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi J. Cost- effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann. Int. Med. 133(8), 573–584 (2000).
  • ••Markov model for colonoscopy.
  • Khandker RIK, Dulski JD, Kilpatrick JB et al A decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults. Int. J. Tirhn. Assess. Health Cam 16(3), 799–810 (2000).
  • •Many strategies assessed.
  • Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi J. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann. Int. Med. 133 (8), 573–584 (2000).
  • Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS etal Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population. JAIVIA284(15), 1954–1961 (2000).
  • ••Recent reference model carried out to USguidelines.
  • Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Graham JD. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal. 15(3), 369–390 (1995).
  • Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med. Cam 38(6), 583–637 (2000).
  • Glick S, Wagner JL, Johnson CD. Cost-effectiveness of Double-Contrast Barium Enema in Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Am. Roentgenol 170,629–638 (1998).
  • ••Example of DBCE screening policy.
  • Office of Technology Assessment. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. U.S. Congress report No OTA-BP-H-146. OTA, Washington DC, USA (1995).
  • Mc Mahon PM, Bosch JL, Gleason S,Halpern EK et al Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Radiology219(1), 44–50 (2000).
  • Eddy DM. Screening for colorectal cancer. Ann. Int. Med 113,373–384 (1990).
  • Office of Technology Assessment. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. U.S. Congress report No OTA-BP-H-146. OTA, Washington DC, USA (1995).
  • Glick S, Wagner JL, Johnson CD. Cost- effectiveness of Double-Contrast Barium Enema in Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Am. Roentgenol 170,629–638 (1998).
  • Ness RM, Holmes AM, Klein R, Dittus R.Cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer at various ages. Arnj Castroenterol 95(7), 1800–1811 (2000).Shows the shift in optimal strategies according to age.
  • Ransohoff DF, Lang CA. Cost-effectiveness of one-time colonoscopy screening to reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Gastroenterology 106, A24 (1994).
  • Taplin SH, Barlow W, Urban N,Mandelson MT etal. Stage, age, comorbidity and direct costs of colon, prostate and breast cancer. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 87(6), 417–426 (1995).
  • Norum J. Prevention of colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness approach to a screening model employing sigmokloscopy. Ann. Oncol 9,613–618 (1998).
  • Geul KW, Bosman FT, Van Blankenstein M et al Prevention of colorectal cancer: Costs and effectiveness of sigmokloscopy. Scant I. Castroenterol 32\(Suppl. 223), 79–87 (1997).Microsimulation model with time dependent adenoma development rule.
  • Vatn,MH, Stalsberg H. The prevalence of polyps of the large intestine in Oslo: an autopsy study. Cancer 49(4), 819–825 (1982).
  • Sorrentino D, Paduano R, Bemardis V et al. Colorectal Cancer screening in Italy: feasibility and cost-effectiveness in a model area. Eur. j Castmenteml Hepatol 11(6), 655–660 (1999).
  • Geul KW, Bosman FT, Van Blankenstein M, etal. Prevention of colorectal cancer: Costs and effectiveness of sigmokloscopy. Scandj Castroenterol 32(Suppl 223), 79–87 (1997).
  • Sorrentino D, Paduano R, Bemardis V et al. Colorectal Cancer screening in Italy: feasibility and cost-effectiveness in a model area. Eur j Castroenterol Hepatol 11 (6), 655–660 (1999).
  • Hristova L, Hakama M, Effect of screening for cancer in the Nordic countries on deaths, costs and quality of life up to the year 2017. Acta Oncologica 36\(Suppl 9), 1–60 (1997).
  • Salkeld G, Young G, Irwin L etal. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening by fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer in Australia. Aust. NZI. of Public Health 20, 138–143 (1996).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.