Endoscopy 2011; 43(9): 780-793
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256409
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Cost effectiveness and projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening in France

C.  Hassan1 , R.  Benamouzig2 , C.  Spada1 , T.  Ponchon3 , A.  Zullo1 , J.  C.  Saurin3 , G.  Costamagna1
  • 1Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
  • 2Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital Avicenne, Bobigny, France
  • 3Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France.
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 5 October 2010

accepted after revision 6 March 2011

Publication Date:
27 May 2011 (online)

Preview

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in France. Only scanty data on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in Europe are available, generating uncertainty over its efficiency. Although immunochemical fecal tests (FIT) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests (g-FOBT) have been shown to be cost-effective in France, cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening has not yet been addressed.

Methods: Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies using colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), FIT and g-FOBT were compared using a Markov model. A 40 % adherence rate was assumed for all strategies. Colonoscopy costs included anesthesiologist assistance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Probabilistic and value-of-information analyses were used to estimate the expected benefit of future research. A third-payer perspective was adopted.

Results: In the reference case analysis, FIT repeated every year was the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of € 48 165 per life-year gained vs. FIT every 2 years, which was the next most cost-effective strategy. Although CCE every 5 years was as effective as FIT 1-year, it was not a cost-effective alternative. Colonoscopy repeated every 10 years was substantially more costly, and slightly less effective than FIT 1-year. When projecting the model outputs onto the French population, the least (g-FOBT 2-years) and most (FIT 1-year) effective strategies reduced the absolute number of annual CRC deaths from 16 037 to 12 916 and 11 217, respectively, resulting in an annual additional cost of € 26 million and € 347 million, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that FIT 1-year was the optimal choice in 20 % of the simulated scenarios, whereas sigmoidoscopy 5-years, colonoscopy, and FIT 2-years were the optimal choices in 40 %, 26 %, and 14 %, respectively.

Conclusions: A screening program based on FIT 1-year appeared to be the most cost-effective approach for CRC screening in France. However, a substantial uncertainty over this choice is still present.

Appendix 1 – 2 are available online:

References

C. HassanMD 

Digestive Endoscopy Unit
Catholic University

Rome
Italy

Fax: +39-36-266347

Email: cesareh@hotmail.com