A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Europe: Have Studies Included Optimal Screening Intensities?

Abstract

Objective To assess the range of strategies analysed in European cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with respect to the screening intervals, age ranges and test cut-offs used to define positivity, to examine how this might influence what strategies are found to be optimal, and compare them with the current screening policies with a focus on the screening interval. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for peer-reviewed, model-based CEAs of CRC screening. We included studies on average-risk European populations using the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or faecal immunochemical test (FIT). We adapted Drummond’s ten-point checklist to appraise study quality. Results We included 39 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Biennial screening was the most frequently used interval which was analysed in 37 studies. Annual screening was assessed in 13 studies, all of which found it optimally cost-effective. Despite this, 25 of 26 European stool-based programmes use biennial screening. Many CEAs did not vary the age range, but the 14 that did generally found broader ranges optimal. Only 11 studies considered alternative FIT cut-offs, 9 of which found lower cut-offs superior. Conflicts between current policy and CEA evidence are less clear regarding age ranges and cut-offs. Conclusions The existing CEA evidence indicates that the widely adopted biennial frequency of stool-based testing in Europe is suboptimal. It is likely that many more lives could be saved throughout Europe if programmes could be offered with more intensive annual screening. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-023-00819-3.

Colorectal cancer screening: A review of current knowledge and progress in research

“…In fact, aside from being cost-effective compared to no screening[ 23 ], a cost-effectiveness modeling study revealed that the number of gained life-years with a screening strategy involving annual FIT is comparable to that achieved with a colonoscopy every 10 years[ 47 ]. Annual screening is optimally cost-effective when using FIT[ 48 ]. Regarding detection of advanced adenomas, a systematic review and meta-analysis including thirty-one cross-sectional studies that utilized screening colonoscopy as the reference standard reported a sensitivity of 25%[ 49 ].…”