© 2000 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92, No. 7, 557-563,
April 5, 2000
© 2000 Oxford University Press
REPORTS |
Endoscopic Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Cost-Saving Analysis
Affiliations of authors: F. Loeve, R. Boer, M. van Ballegooijen, G. J. van Oortmarssen, J. D. F. Habbema, Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; M. L. Brown, Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Correspondence to: F. Loeve, M.S., Department of Public Health (iMGZ), Medical Faculty, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: loeve{at}mgz. fgg.eur.nl).
Background: Comprehensive analyses have shown that screening for cancer usually induces net costs. In this study, the possible costs and savings of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening are explored to investigate whether the induced savings may compensate for the costs of screening. Methods: A simulation model for evaluation of colorectal cancer screening, MISCAN–COLON, is used to predict costs and savings for the U.S. population, assuming that screening is performed during a period of 30 years. Plausible baseline parameter values of epidemiology, natural history, screening test characteristics, and unit costs are based on available data and expert opinion. Important parameters are varied to extreme but plausible values. Results: Given the expert opinion-based assumptions, a program based on every 5-year sigmoidoscopy screenings could result in a net savings of direct health care costs due to prevention of cancer treatment costs that compensate for the costs of screening, diagnostic follow-up, and surveillance. This result persists when costs and health effects are discounted at 3%. The "break-even" point, the time required before savings exceed costs, is 35 years for a screening program that terminates after 30 years and 44 years for a screening program that continues on indefinitely. However, net savings increase or turn into net costs when alternative assumptions about natural history of colorectal cancer, costs of screening, surveillance, and diagnostics are considered. Conclusions: Given the present, limited knowledge of the disease process of colorectal cancer, test characteristics, and costs, it may well be that the induced savings by endoscopic colorectal cancer screening completely compensate for the costs.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. G. Zauber, I. Lansdorp-Vogelaar, A. B. Knudsen, J. Wilschut, M. van Ballegooijen, and K. M. Kuntz Evaluating Test Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, October 6, 2008; (2008) 0000605-200811040-00244. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. S. Braithwaite, J. Concato, C. C. Chang, M. S. Roberts, and A. C. Justice A Framework for Tailoring Clinical Guidelines to Comorbidity at the Point of Care Arch Intern Med, November 26, 2007; 167(21): 2361 - 2365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Brenner, M. Hoffmeister, C. Stegmaier, G. Brenner, L. Altenhofen, and U. Haug Risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by age and sex: estimates based on 840 149 screening colonoscopies Gut, November 1, 2007; 56(11): 1585 - 1589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Tappenden, J. Chilcott, S. Eggington, H. Sakai, J. Karnon, and J. Patnick Option appraisal of population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in England Gut, May 1, 2007; 56(5): 677 - 684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J G Williams, S E Roberts, M F Ali, W Y Cheung, D R Cohen, G Demery, A Edwards, M Greer, M D Hellier, H A Hutchings, et al. Gastroenterology services in the UK. The burden of disease, and the organisation and delivery of services for gastrointestinal and liver disorders: a review of the evidence Gut, February 1, 2007; 56(suppl_1): 1 - 113. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. B. Knudsen, P. M. McMahon, and G. S. Gazelle Use of Modeling to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of Cancer Screening Programs J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2007; 25(2): 203 - 208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Y. G. L. Tan, G. J. van Oortmarssen, H. J. de Koning, R. Boer, and J. D. F. Habbema Chapter 9: The MISCAN-Fadia Continuous Tumor Growth Model for Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 56 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. S. Lin, R. A. Kozarek, D. B. Schembre, K. Ayub, M. Gluck, F. Drennan, M.-S. Soon, and L. Rabeneck Screening colonoscopy in very elderly patients: prevalence of neoplasia and estimated impact on life expectancy. JAMA, May 24, 2006; 295(20): 2357 - 2365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Anderson, J. S. Jacobson, D. F. Heitjan, J. G. Zivin, D. Hershman, A. I. Neugut, and V. R. Grann Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. Ann Intern Med, March 21, 2006; 144(6): 397 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Pignone, S. Saha, T. Hoerger, K. N. Lohr, S. Teutsch, and J. Mandelblatt Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Economic Analyses Ann Intern Med, June 21, 2005; 142(12_Part_2): 1073 - 1079. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Lafata, J. Simpkins, L. Lamerato, L. Poisson, G. Divine, and C. C. Johnson The Economic Impact of False-Positive Cancer Screens Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2126 - 2132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. C. Battat, R. V. Rouse, L. Dempsey, B. Y. Safadi, and S. M. Wren Institutional Commitment to Rectal Cancer Screening Results in Earlier-Stage Cancers on Diagnosis Ann. Surg. Oncol., November 1, 2004; 11(11): 970 - 976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Provenzale and R. N. Gray Colorectal Cancer Screening and Treatment: Review of Outcomes Research J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2004; 2004(33): 45 - 55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. A. Newcomb, B. E. Storer, L. M. Morimoto, A. Templeton, and J. D. Potter Long-Term Efficacy of Sigmoidoscopy in the Reduction of Colorectal Cancer Incidence J Natl Cancer Inst, April 16, 2003; 95(8): 622 - 625. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. E. Walsh and J. P. Terdiman Colorectal Cancer Screening: Clinical Applications JAMA, March 12, 2003; 289(10): 1297 - 1302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W S Atkin and J M A Northover Population based endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer Gut, March 1, 2003; 52(3): 321 - 322. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Pignone, S. Saha, T. Hoerger, and J. Mandelblatt Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, July 16, 2002; 137(2): 96 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Latosinsky Screening for colorectal cancer Can. Med. Assoc. J., April 1, 2001; 164(7): 966 - 967. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. M. McMahon, J. L. Bosch, S. Gleason, E. F. Halpern, J. S. Lester, and G. S. Gazelle Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Radiology, April 1, 2001; 219(1): 44 - 50. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Loeve, M. L. Brown, R. Boer, and J. D. F. Habbema Re: Improving the Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening J Natl Cancer Inst, October 18, 2000; 92(20): 1691 - 1692. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. L. Frazier, G. A. Colditz, C. S. Fuchs, and K. M. Kuntz Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population JAMA, October 18, 2000; 284(15): 1954 - 1961. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Colon Cancer Screening Saves Money Journal Watch Gastroenterology, July 1, 2000; 2000(701): 12 - 12. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. S. Atkin and D. K. Whynes Improving the Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening J Natl Cancer Inst, April 5, 2000; 92(7): 513 - 514. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|