Cost‐effectiveness of high‐sensitivity faecal immunochemical test and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.
Published: 31st May 2017
Authors: M. Aronsson, P. Carlsson, L.‐Å. Levin, J. Hager, R. Hultcrantz
Colorectal cancer screening can decrease morbidity and mortality. However, there are widespread differences in the implementation of programmes and choice of strategy. The primary objective of this study was to estimate lifelong costs and health outcomes of two of the currently most preferred methods of screening for colorectal cancer: colonoscopy and sensitive faecal immunochemical test (
A cost‐effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in a Swedish population was performed using a decision analysis model, based on the design of the Screening of Swedish Colons (
For 1000 individuals invited to screening, it was estimated that screening once with colonoscopy yielded 49 more quality‐adjusted life‐years (
All screening strategies were cost‐effective compared with no screening. Repeated and single screening strategies with colonoscopy were more cost‐effective than
You may also be interested in
Authors: E. J. Ryan, E. M. Creagh
Effect of Akt activation and experimental pharmacological inhibition on responses to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e192-e203.
Authors: F. C. Koyama, C. M. Lopes Ramos, F. Ledesma, V. A. F. Alves, J. M. Fernandes, B. B. Vailati et al.
Notes: Molecular enhancement of treatment
Clinicopathological, genomic and immunological factors in colorectal cancer prognosis. BJS 2018; 105: e99-e109.
Authors: K. M. Marks, N. P. West, E. Morris, P. Quirke
Notes: Defines modern practice
Gut microbiome influences on anastomotic leak and recurrence rates following colorectal cancer surgery. BJS 2018; 105: e131-e141.
Authors: S. Gaines, C. Shao, N. Hyman, J. C. Alverdy
Notes: A neglected frontier
Circulating tumour cells and DNA as liquid biopsies in gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e110-e120.
Authors: O. Nordgård, K. Tjensvoll, B. Gilje, K. Søreide
Notes: The inner space frontier
Histopathological and molecular classification of colorectal cancer and corresponding peritoneal metastases. BJS 2018; 105: e204-e211.
Authors: I. Ubink, W. J. van Eden, P. Snaebjornsson, N. F. M. Kok, J. van Kuik, W. M. U. van Grevenstein et al.
Notes: Mesenchymal subtype predominates
Quality of life in a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial). BJS 2018; 105: 244-251.
Authors: J. Park, A. K. Danielsen, E. Angenete, D. Bock, A. C. Marinez, E. Haglind et al.
Notes: No different after early ileostomy closure
Growth rates of pulmonary metastases after liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2018; 105: 295-301.
Authors: H. Grut, S. Solberg, T. Seierstad, M. E. Revheim, T. S. Egge, S. G. Larsen et al.
Notes: Immunosuppression may not accelerate growth
Preliminary results of a cohort study of induction chemotherapy‐based treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer.
Authors: D. M. G. I. van Zoggel, S. J. Bosman, M. Kusters, G. A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, J. S. Cnossen, G. J. Creemers et al.
Notes: Promising responses
MRI‐based score to predict surgical difficulty in patients with rectal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 140-146.
Authors: L. Escal, S. Nougaret, B. Guiu, M. M. Bertrand, H. de Forges, R. Tetreau et al.
Notes: Imaging criteria predict surgical difficulty
Meta‐analysis of outcomes following resection of the primary tumour in patients presenting with metastatic colorectal cancer.
Authors: U. Nitsche, C. Stöß, L. Stecher, D. Wilhelm, H. Friess, G. O. Ceyhan et al.
Notes: Selected patients only
Population‐based study of factors predicting treatment intention in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. BJS 2017; 104: 1866-1873.
Authors: K. Westberg, G. Palmer, F. Hjern, C. Nordenvall, H. Johansson, T. Holm et al.
Notes: Defines good selection criteria