To estimate the cost-effectiveness of faecal occult blood (FOB) screening for colorectal cancer within the Nottingham trial.
Setting:
A randomised controlled trial (1981–present) of 153,000 subjects, of whom approximately half were offered biennial FOB testing over up to five screening rounds.
Methods:
The additional costs of participation in screening relative to symptomatic presentation were calculated by combining the results of (i) a comprehensive audit of resource use on the part of subjects within the trial, (ii) previously-established unit costs for each of the procedures involved. Life expectancy gains were estimated from a survival analysis of those trial subjects who had been diagnosed with cancer (screening participants vs controls).
Results:
The cost of screening under the Nottingham trial protocol was 5290 per cancer detected (at 2002 prices). Under conservative assumptions, the incremental cost per life year gained as a result of screening was 1584 (Confidence Interval [CI]:717 to 8612).
References
1.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in the European Union, EUCAN 1997 estimates., 2002. Available from: www-dep.iarc.fr/eucan/eucan.htm (Last accessed 20 October 2003).
2.
TowlerBIrwigLGlasziouPA systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. BMJ, 1998;317:559–565.
3.
HardcastleJDBalfourTWAmarSS.Screening for symptomless colorectal cancer by testing for occult blood in general practice, Lancet1980;1:791–793.
4.
HardcastleJDFarrandsPABalfourTWControlled trial of faecal occult blood testing in the detection of colorectal cancer. Lancet, 1983;2:1–4.
5.
HardcastleJDChamberlainJORobinsonMHERandomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer, Lancet1996;348:1472–77.
6.
ScholefieldJHMossSSufiFEffect of faecal occult blood screening on mortality from colorectal cancer: Results from a randomised controlled trial. Gut, 2002;50:840–44.
7.
WhynesDKNeilsonARWalkerARFaecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: Is it cost-effective ?Health Econ1998;7:21–9.
8.
NeilsonARWhynesDK.Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer: A simulation model. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol, 1995;12:355–67.
9.
KhandkerRKDulskiJDKilpatrickJBA decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults. Int J Tech Assess Health Care, 2000;16(3): 799–810.
10.
FrazierALColditzGAFuchsCSCost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA, 2000;284(15): 1954–61.
11.
VijanSHwangEWHoferTPWhich colon cancer screening test ? a comparison of costs, effectiveness and compliance. Am J Med, 2001;111:593–601.
12.
RobinsonMHEMossSMHardcastleJDEffect of retesting with dietary restriction in Haemoccult screening for colorectal cancer. J Med Screen, 1995;2:41–44.
13.
WalkerARWhynesDKChamberlainJOThe cost of screening for colorectal cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1991;45:220–24.
14.
WalkerARWhynesDKHardcastleJDThe hospital costs of diagnostic procedures for colorectal cancer. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991;44:907–14.
15.
WalkerARWhynesDK.Participation and screening programmes for colorectal cancer: More would be better ?J Health Econ1991;10:207–25.
16.
WhynesDKWalkerARHardcastleJD.Effect of subject age on costs of screening for colorecal cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1992;46:577–81.
17.
WhynesDKWalkerARChamberlainJOScreening and the costs of treating colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer, 1993;68:965–68.
18.
SmithDHGravelleH. The practice of discounting in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. Int J Tech Assess Health Care, 2001;17(2): 236–43.
19.
ArmitageNCHardcastleJDAmarSSA comparsion of an immunological faecal occult blood test, Fecatwin sensitive/FECA EIA, with Haemoccult in population screening for colorectal cancer. Brit J Cancer, 1985;51(6): 799–804.
20.
DHSS Working Group (Chairman, Sir Patrick Forrest). Breast cancer screening: Report to the health ministers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland., London: HMSO, 1986.
21.
WolstenholmeJLSmithSJWhynesDK.The costs of treating breast cancer in the United Kingdom: Implications for screening. Int J Tech Assess Health Care, 1998;14:277–89.
22.
LeslieACareyFAPrattNRThe colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Brit J Surg, 2002;89:845–60.
23.
WinawerSJZauberAGHoMNPrevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. NEJM, 1993;329(27): 1977–81.
24.
MandelJSChurchTRBondJHThe effect of fecal occult blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. NEJM, 2000;343(22): 1603–07.
25.
CitardaFTomaselliGCapocacciaREfficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut, 2001;48(6): 812–15.
26.
LundJNScholefieldJHGraingeMJRisks, costs and compliance limit colorectal adenoma surveillance: Lessons from a randomised trial. Gut, 2001;49:91–6.
27.
NeilsonARWhynesDK.Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancer. Soc Sci Med, 1995;41:365–74.
28.
SuttonSWardleJTaylorTPredictors of attendance in the United Kingdom flexible sigmoidoscopy screening trial. J Med Screen, 2000;7:99–104.
29.
GatrellAGarnettSRigbyJUptake of screening for breast cancer in south Lancashire. Public Health, 1998;112(5): 297–301.
30.
IbbotsonTWykeSMcEwanJ, Uptake of cervical screening in general practice: Effect of practice organisation, structure and deprivation. J Med Screen, 1996;3(1):35–39.
31.
ColemanMPBabbPSloggettASocioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England and Wales. Cancer2001;91:208–216.
32.
LaunoyGSmithTCDuffySWColorectal cancer mass-screening: Estimation of faecal occult blood test sensitivity taking into account cancer mean sojurn time. Int J Cancer, 1997;73:220–24.
33.
ScholefieldJHMossSH.Faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. J Med Screen, 2002;9:54–55.
34.
RabaneckLEl-SeragHBDavilaJAOutcomes of colorectal cancer in the United States: No change in survival (1986–1997). Am J Gastroenterol, 2003;98(2): 471–77.
