Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Ukraine

Authors: Nelya Melnitchouk, Djøra I. Soeteman, Jennifer S. Davids, Adam Fields, Joshua Cohen, Farzad Noubary, Andrey Lukashenko, Olena O. Kolesnik, Karen M. Freund

Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and is associated with high mortality when detected at a later stage. There is a paucity of studies from low and middle income countries to support the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening compared to no screening in Ukraine, a lower-middle income country.

Methods

We developed a deterministic Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of three colorectal cancer screening strategies [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FOBT every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years] compared to no screening. We modeled outcomes in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime time horizon. We performed sensitivity analyses on treatment adherence, test characteristics and costs. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine.

Results

The base-case lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis showed that all three screening strategies were cost saving compared to no screening, and among the three strategies, colonoscopy every 10 years was the dominant strategy compared to no screening with standard adherence to treatment. When decreased adherence to treatment was modeled, colonoscopy every 10 years was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $843 per QALY compared with no screening.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that colorectal cancer screening can save money and improve health compared to no screening in Ukraine. Colonoscopy every 10 years is superior to the other screening modalities evaluated in this study. This knowledge can be used to concentrate efforts on developing a national screening program in Ukraine.
Literature
1.
Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893–917.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Global Burden of Disease Cancer, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(4):524–48.CrossRef
3.
Jakovljevic MB, Vukovic M, Fontanesi J. Life expectancy and health expenditure evolution in Eastern Europe-DiD and DEA analysis. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(4):537–46.CrossRef
4.
Jakovljevic M, et al. Radiation therapy remains the key cost driver of oncology inpatient treatment. J Med Econ. 2015;18(1):29–36.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jakovljevic M, et al. Costs differences among monoclonal antibodies-based first-line oncology cancer protocols for breast cancer, colorectal carcinoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J BUON. 2014;19(4):1111–20.PubMed
6.
Frazier AL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA. 2000;284(15):1954–61.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Vijan S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(2):380–90.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Zauber AG, et al. In cost-effectiveness of CT Colonography to screen for colorectal cancer. Rockville; 2009.
11.
Kovacevic A, et al. End-of-life costs of medical care for advanced stage cancer patients. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2015;72(4):334–41.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Arminski TC, McLean DW. Incidence and distribution of adenomatous polyps of the colon and rectum based on 1000 autopsy examinations. Dis Colon Rectum. 1964;7:249–61.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Rickert RR, et al. Adenomatous lesions of the large bowel: an autopsy survey. Cancer. 1979;43(5):1847–57.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Vatn MH, Stalsberg H. The prevalence of polyps of the large intestine in Oslo: an autopsy study. Cancer. 1982;49(4):819–25.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Regula J, et al. Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(18):1863–72.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Strul H, et al. The prevalence rate and anatomic location of colorectal adenoma and cancer detected by colonoscopy in average-risk individuals aged 40–80 years. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(2):255–62.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Schoenfeld P, et al. Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(20):2061–8.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Veterans G, Affairs Cooperative Study. One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(8):555–60.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Myers MH, Ries LA. Cancer patient survival rates: SEER program results for 10 years of follow-up. CA Cancer J Clin. 1989;39(1):21–32.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Selby JV, et al. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(10):653–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Jorgensen OD, Kronborg O, Fenger C. A randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer using faecal occult blood testing: results after 13 years and seven biennial screening rounds. Gut. 2002;50(1):29–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Mandel JS, et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(22):1603–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Greenberg PD, et al. A prospective multicenter evaluation of new fecal occult blood tests in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(5):1331–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Imperiale TF, et al. Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal-cancer screening in an average-risk population. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(26):2704–14.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Collins JF, et al. Accuracy of screening for fecal occult blood on a single stool sample obtained by digital rectal examination: a comparison with recommended sampling practice. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(2):81–5.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Pickhardt PJ, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(23):2191–200.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Cotton PB, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1713–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Irvine EJ, et al. Prospective comparison of double contrast barium enema plus flexible sigmoidoscopy v colonoscopy in rectal bleeding: barium enema v colonoscopy in rectal bleeding. Gut. 1988;29(9):1188–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Rex DK. Colonoscopy and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1997;7(3):499–508.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Levin TR, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(12):880–6.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ness RM, et al. Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(6):1650–7.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Zauber AG, et al. In evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening-age to begin, age to stop, and timing of screening intervals: a decision analysis of colorectal cancer screening for the US preventive services task force from the cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network (CISNET). Rockville; 2009.
34.
Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(8):573–84.CrossRefPubMed
35.
O’Leary BA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening: comparison of community-based flexible sigmoidoscopy with fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;19(1):38–47.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Norum J. Prevention of colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness approach to a screening model employing sigmoidoscopy. Ann Oncol. 1998;9(6):613–8.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Ness RM, et al. Cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer at various ages. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(7):1800–11.CrossRefPubMed
38.
De Angelis R, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):23–34.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Vrdoljak E, et al. Cancer control in central and Eastern Europe: current situation and recommendations for improvement. Oncologist. 2016;21(10):1183–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Leshno M, Halpern Z, Arber N. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in the average risk population. Health Care Manag Sci. 2003;6(3):165–74.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Jakovljevic MB. Resource allocation strategies in Southeastern European health policy. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(2):153–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Ukraine
Authors
Nelya Melnitchouk
Djøra I. Soeteman
Jennifer S. Davids
Adam Fields
Joshua Cohen
Farzad Noubary
Andrey Lukashenko
Olena O. Kolesnik
Karen M. Freund
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-7547
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0104-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Empirical estimation of resource constraints for use in model-based economic evaluation: an example of TB services in South Africa

Research

Financial risk of increasing the follow-up period of breast cancer treatment currently covered by the Social Protection System in Health in México

Letter to the Editor

Minor ailments, major problems: a critical appraisal of Rafferty et al. (2017)

Research

Brief interventions to address substance use among patients presenting to emergency departments in resource poor settings: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Research

Higher pharmaceutical public expenditure after direct price control: improved access or induced demand? The Colombian case

Research

The acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP) for hypothetical dengue vaccine in Penang, Malaysia: a contingent valuation study