Background: Although screening is necessary where gastric cancer is particularly common in Asia, the performance outcomes of mass screening programs have remained unclear. This study was conducted to evaluate cost-effectiveness outcomes of the national cancer screening program (NCSP) for gastric cancer in South Korea. Materials and Methods: People aged 40 years or over during 2002-2003 (baseline) were the target population. Screening recipients and patients diagnosed with gastric cancers were identified using the NCSP and Korea Central Cancer Registry databases. Clinical outcomes were measured in terms of mortality and life-years saved (LYS) of gastric cancer patients during 7 years based on merged data from the Korean National Health Insurance Corporation and National Statistical Office. We considered direct, indirect, and productivity-loss costs associated with screening attendance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were produced according to screening method, sex, and age group compared to non-screening. Results: The age-adjusted ICER for survival was 260,201,000-371,011,000 Korean Won (KW; 1USD=1,088 KW) for the upper-gastrointestinal (UGI) tract over non-screening. Endoscopy ICERs were lower (119,099,000-178,700,000 KW/survival) than UGI. To increase 1 life-year, additional costs of approximately 14,466,000-15,014,000 KW and 8,817,000-9,755,000 KW were required for UGI and endoscopy, respectively. Endoscopy was the most cost-effective strategy for males and females. With regard to sensitivity analyses varying based on the upper age limit, endoscopy NCSP was dominant for both males and females. For males, an upper limit of age 75 or 80 years could be considered. ICER estimates for LYS indicate that the gastric cancer screening program in Korea is cost-effective. Conclusion: Endoscopy should be recommended as a first-line method in Korea because it is beneficial among the Korean population.

Background: Mammography is considered the gold standard of breast cancer mass screening and many countries have implemented this as an established breast cancer screening strategy. However, although the incidence of breast cancer and racial characteristics are different between Western and Asian countries, many Asian countries adopted mammography for mass screening. Therefore, the objective of this research was to determine whether mammography mass screening is cost-effective for both Western and Asian countries. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed of 17 national mammography cost-effectiveness data sets. Per capita gross domestic product (GDP), breast cancer incidence rate, and the most optimal costeffectiveness results [cost per life year saved (LYS)] of a mammography screening strategy for each data set were extracted. The CE/per capita GDP ratio is used to compare the cost-effectiveness of mammography by rate boundary line determining whether mammography screening is cost-effective or not. Results: We found that the cost-effective cut-off point of breast cancer incidence rate was 45.04; it exactly divided countries into Western and Asian countries (p<0.0014). Conclusions: Mammography screening is cost-effective in most of Western countries, but not in Asian countries. The reason for this result may be the issues of incidence rate or racial characteristics, such as dense breast tissue. The results indicate that mammography screening should be adopted prudently in Asian countries and other countries with low incidence rates.

This goal of this research was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for breast cancer in the Republic of Korea from a government expenditure perspective. In 2002-2003 (baseline), a total of 8,724,860 women aged 40 years or over were invited to attend breast cancer screening by the NCSP. Those who attended were identified using the NCSP database, and women were divided into two groups, women who attended screening at baseline (screened group) and those who did not (non-screened group). Breast cancer diagnosis in both groups at baseline, and during 5-year follow-up was identified using the Korean Central Cancer Registry. The effectiveness of the NCSP for breast cancer was estimated by comparing 5-year survival and life years saved (LYS) between the screened and the unscreened groups, measured using mortality data from the Korean National Health Insurance Corporation and the National Health Statistical Office. Direct screening costs, indirect screening costs, and productivity costs were considered in different combinations in the model. When all three of these costs were considered together, the incremental cost to save one life year of a breast cancer patient was 42,305,000 Korean Won (KW) (1 USD=1,088 KW) for the screened group compared to the non-screened group. In sensitivity analyses, reducing the false-positive rate of the screening program by half was the most cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER=30,110,852 KW/LYS) strategy. When the upper age limit for screening was set at 70 years, it became more cost-effective (ICER=39,641,823 KW/LYS) than when no upper age limit was set. The NCSP for breast cancer in Korea seems to be accepted as cost-effective as ICER estimates were around the Gross Domestic Product. However, cost-effectiveness could be further improved by increasing the sensitivity of breast cancer screening and by setting appropriate age limits.

No abstract