Download PDF
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)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

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

  • 1 Micheli A, Mugno E, Krogh V et al. Cancer prevalence in European registry areas.  Ann Oncol. 2002;  13 840-865
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bouvier A M. Mass screening for colorectal cancer in France.  Bull Epidemiol Hebd. 2009;  2 14-16
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Ann Intern Med. 2002;  137 96-104
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Seeff L C, Manninen D L, Dong F B et al. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 1661-1669
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Berchi C, Bouvier V, Réaud J M, Launoy G. Cost-effectiveness analysis of two strategies for mass screening for colorectal cancer in France.  Health Econ. 2004;  13 227-238
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Atkin W S, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2010;  375 1624-1633
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Whitlock E P, Lin J S, Liles E et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;  149 638-658
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Canard J M, Debette-Gratien M, Dumas R et al. A prospective national study on colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in 2000 in France.  Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2005;  29 17-22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Vargo J J, Cohen L B, Rex D K et al. Position statement: Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy.  Gastroenterology. 2009;  137 2161-2167
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Spada C, Hassan C, Marmo R et al. Meta analysis shows colon capsule endoscopy is effective in detecting colorectal polyps.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;  8 516-522
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Eliakim R, Yassin K, Niv Y et al. Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2009;  41 1026-1031
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Life Tables for WHO Member States.  Available at: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality_life_tables/en/ Accessed: September 2010
    PubMed
  • 13 Hassan C, Pickhardt P J, Laghi A et al. CT colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis.  Arch Intern Med. 2008;  168 696-705
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Hassan C, Hunink M G, Laghi A et al. Value-of-information analysis to guide future research in colorectal cancer screening.  Radiology. 2009;  253 745-752
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Haug U, Hundt S, Brenner H. Quantitative immunochemical fecal occult blood testing for colorectal adenoma detection: evaluation in the target population of screening and comparison with qualitative tests.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;  105 682-690
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Young G P, St John D J, Winawer S J et al. Choice of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening: recommendations based on performance characteristics in population studies: a WHO (World Health Organization) and OMED (World Organization for Digestive Endoscopy) report.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 2499-2507
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Pickhardt P J, Hassan C, Laghi A et al. Small and diminutive polyps detected at screening CT colonography: a decision analysis for referral to colonoscopy.  AJR. 2008;  190 136-144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Classification Commune des Actes Médicaux (CCAM). Available at: http://www.ccam.sante.fr/ Accessed: September 2010
  • 19 Chevreul K. Colorectal cancer in France.  Eur J Health Econ. 2010;  10 S15-20
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques .Labour cost per hour. Available at: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=NATTEF04115 Accessed: September 2010
  • 21 Tengs T O, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates.  Med Care. 2000;  38 583-637
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 International Data Base (IDB). Available at: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php Accessed: September 2010
  • 23 Ladabaum U, Song K. Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand.  Gastroenterology. 2005;  129 1151-1162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies.  J Health Econ. 1999;  18 341-364
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Felli J C, Hazen G B. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information.  Med Decis Making. 1998;  18 95-109
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Groot Koerkamp B, Myriam Hunink M G, Stijnen T, Weinstein M C. Identifying key parameters in cost-effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods.  Health Econ. 2006;  15 383-392
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Zauber A G et al. Effect of rising chemotherapy costs on the cost savings of colorectal cancer screening.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;  101 1412-1422
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Rex D K, Deenadayalu V P, Eid E et al. Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience.  Gastroenterology. 2009;  137 1229-1237
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Hol L, van Leerdam M E, van Ballegooijen M et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: randomised trial comparing guaiac-based and immunochemical faecal occult blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy.  Gut. 2010;  59 62-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 van Rossum L G, van Rijn A F, Laheij R J et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population.  Gastroenterology. 2008;  135 82-90
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Towler B, Irwig L, Glasziou P et al. A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult.  BMJ. 1998;  317 559-565
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Zorzi M, Falcini F, Fedato C et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in Italy: 2006 survey.  Epidemiol Prev. 2008;  32 55-68
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Regge D, Hassan C, Pickhardt P J et al. Impact of computer-aided detection on the cost-effectiveness of CT colonography.  Radiology. 2009;  250 488-497
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

C. HassanMD 

Digestive Endoscopy Unit
Catholic University

Rome
Italy

Fax: +39-36-266347

Email: cesareh@hotmail.com