Background: Published decision analyses show that screening for colorectal cancer is cost-effective. However, because of the number of tests available, the optimal screening strategy in Canada is unknown. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of 10 strategies for colorectal cancer screening, as well as no screening, incorporating quality of life, noncompliance and data on the costs and benefits of chemotherapy. Methods:We used a probabilistic Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 50-year-old average-risk Canadians without screening and with screening by each test. We populated the model with data from the published literature. We calculated costs from the perspective of a third-party payer, with inflation to 2007 Canadian dollars. Results:Of the 10 strategies considered, we focused on three tests currently being used for population screening in some Canadian provinces: low-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test, performed annually; fecal immunochemical test, performed annually; and colonoscopy, performed every 10 years. These strategies reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer by 44%, 65% and 81%, and mortality by 55%, 74% and 83%, respectively, compared with no screening. These strategies generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $9159, $611 and $6133 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. The findings were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Colonoscopy every 10 years yielded the greatest net health benefit.Interpretation: Screening for colorectal cancer is costeffective over conventional levels of willingness to pay. Annual high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing, such as a fecal immunochemical test, or colonoscopy every 10 years offer the best value for the money in Canada. AbstractPreviously published at www.cmaj.ca Research Methods Model designWe developed a Markov model using TreeAge DATA Pro (TreeAge Software Inc., Williamstown, Mass.) to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10 strategies for screening, as well as no screening, in 50-year-old individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (Table 1). Screening and surveillance continued until 75 years of age, and the analysis continued through the lifetime of the cohort. The length of the model cycle (or, equivalently, the duration over which an individual remained in the same health state before having the oppor tunity to transition to another health state) was one year. We calculated costs from the perspective of a thirdparty payer such as a provincial ministry of health and inflated these costs to 2007 Canadian dollars. The model output was quality-adjusted life-years. We discounted costs and effects at 5% annually and used a half-cycle correction to account for these discounts.We simulated the natural history of colo rectal cancer (Figure 1). We calibrated the input parameters of incidence and progression of adenoma to colorectal cancer to generate the known age-specific prevalence of adenomas and colorectal cancer (Appendix 2, available at www.cmaj.ca /cgi /content/fu...
This is the first quantitative analysis allowing formal comparison between cetuximab and radiotherapy versus cisplatin and radiotherapy. Based on state-of-the-art methodology for indirect comparisons, it was not possible to identify either treatment regimen as superior in prolonging either locoregional control or overall survival. Until the publication of more studies, and particularly a head-to-head comparison, the two treatments may be considered equally efficacious when given alongside radiotherapy. The choice of treatment may focus on the toxicity profile of the medications.
e17000 Background: Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is a disfiguring and potentially fatal condition. Cetuximab is a new therapeutic option which has been shown to improve locoregional control (LRC) and reduce mortality in the treatment of locally and regionally advanced disease. Objectives: To estimate the incremental cost-utility of cetuximab plus radiotherapy (CxRT) versus cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CsRT) among platinum eligible patients and versus RT alone in platinum ineligible patients in Canada. Methods: A lifetime transition model was developed with four health states: 1) acute treatment phase; 2) LRC; 3) disease progression and 4) death. Adverse events were accounted for in the first two states. Efficacy of treatment (LRC and overall survival) was obtained from the literature. Based on network meta-analyses, CsRT and CxRT were assumed to have equal efficacy. Resource use was obtained from published literature and clinical expert opinion. The perspective adopted was that of a provincial ministry of health or cancer agency. Utilities were obtained from a previous study of United Kingdom oncology nurses. Costs (2008 CDN$) and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses performed to assess robustness of results. A priori sub-group analyses were carried out by baseline Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS). Results: Among all patients (KPS 60–100), the ICERs comparing CxRT to RT were $19,740/QALY (95% CI: $11,122 to $695,295) among platinum ineligible patients and for CxRT vs. CsRT, $99,147/QALY (95% CI: $75,998 to $148,951) among platinum eligible patients. ICERs decreased with increasing KPS scores. At a willingness to pay of $50,000 among platinum-ineligible patients and $100,000 among platinum-eligible patients, the likelihood that CxRT is cost-effective is 90% and 45% respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that time horizon and assumptions about CsRT effectiveness had the largest impact on results. Conclusion: Cetuximab is an economically attractive option for SCCHN patients. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.