File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Cost-effectiveness simulation and analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Hong Kong Chinese population: comparison amongst colonoscopy, guaiac and immunologic fecal occult blood testing

TitleCost-effectiveness simulation and analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Hong Kong Chinese population: comparison amongst colonoscopy, guaiac and immunologic fecal occult blood testing
Authors
Issue Date2015
PublisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmccancer/
Citation
BMC Cancer, 2015, v. 15, p. Article no. 705 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies from the healthcare service provider perspective based on Chinese population. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of recommended screening strategies including annual/biennial guaiac fecal occult blood testing (G-FOBT), annual/biennial immunologic FOBT (I-FOBT), and colonoscopy every 10 years in Chinese aged 50 year over a 25-year period. External validity of model was tested against data retrieved from published randomized controlled trials of G-FOBT. Recourse use data collected from Chinese subjects among staging of colorectal neoplasm were combined with published unit cost data ($USD in 2009 price values) to estimate a stage-specific cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were quantified based on the stage duration and SF-6D preference-based value of each stage. The cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) represented by costs per life-years (LY) and costs per QALYs gained. Results: In base-case scenario, the non-dominated strategies were annual and biennial I-FOBT. Compared with no screening, the ICER presented $20,542/LYs and $3155/QALYs gained for annual I-FOBT, and $19,838/LYs gained and $2976/QALYs gained for biennial I-FOBT. The optimal screening strategy was annual I-FOBT that attained the highest ICER at the threshold of $50,000 per LYs or QALYs gained. Conclusion: The Markov model informed the health policymakers that I-FOBT every year may be the most effective and cost-effective CRC screening strategy among recommended screening strategies, depending on the willingness-to-pay of mass screening for Chinese population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02038283
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/221543
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.265
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.627
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, CKH-
dc.contributor.authorLam, CLK-
dc.contributor.authorWan, YF-
dc.contributor.authorFong, DYT-
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-30T03:34:20Z-
dc.date.available2015-11-30T03:34:20Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Cancer, 2015, v. 15, p. Article no. 705-
dc.identifier.issn1471-2407-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/221543-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies from the healthcare service provider perspective based on Chinese population. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of recommended screening strategies including annual/biennial guaiac fecal occult blood testing (G-FOBT), annual/biennial immunologic FOBT (I-FOBT), and colonoscopy every 10 years in Chinese aged 50 year over a 25-year period. External validity of model was tested against data retrieved from published randomized controlled trials of G-FOBT. Recourse use data collected from Chinese subjects among staging of colorectal neoplasm were combined with published unit cost data ($USD in 2009 price values) to estimate a stage-specific cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were quantified based on the stage duration and SF-6D preference-based value of each stage. The cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) represented by costs per life-years (LY) and costs per QALYs gained. Results: In base-case scenario, the non-dominated strategies were annual and biennial I-FOBT. Compared with no screening, the ICER presented $20,542/LYs and $3155/QALYs gained for annual I-FOBT, and $19,838/LYs gained and $2976/QALYs gained for biennial I-FOBT. The optimal screening strategy was annual I-FOBT that attained the highest ICER at the threshold of $50,000 per LYs or QALYs gained. Conclusion: The Markov model informed the health policymakers that I-FOBT every year may be the most effective and cost-effective CRC screening strategy among recommended screening strategies, depending on the willingness-to-pay of mass screening for Chinese population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02038283-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmccancer/-
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Cancer-
dc.rightsBMC Cancer. Copyright © BioMed Central Ltd.-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.titleCost-effectiveness simulation and analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Hong Kong Chinese population: comparison amongst colonoscopy, guaiac and immunologic fecal occult blood testing-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailWong, CKH: carlosho@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLam, CLK: clklam@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailWan, YF: yfwan@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailFong, DYT: dytfong@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityWong, CKH=rp01931-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, CLK=rp00350-
dc.identifier.authorityFong, DYT=rp00253-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12885-015-1730-y-
dc.identifier.pmid26471036-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC4608156-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84944885048-
dc.identifier.hkuros256138-
dc.identifier.volume15-
dc.identifier.spageArticle no. 705-
dc.identifier.epageArticle no. 705-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000362865300008-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats