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: 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
Outcome after restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch–anal anastomosis in children and adults. BJS 2017; 104: 1640-1647.
Authors: K. Diederen, S. S. Sahami, M. M. Tabbers, M. A. Benninga, A. Kindermann, P. J. Tanis et al.
Notes: Comparable in children and adults
Weekend admission and mortality for gastrointestinal disorders across England and Wales. BJS 2017; 104: 1723-1734.
Authors: S. E. Roberts, T. H. Brown, K. Thorne, R. A. Lyons, A. Akbari, D. J. Napier et al.
Notes: Worst for gastrointestinal cancer and liver disease
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic ultrasonography before laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. BJS 2017; 104: 1462-1469.
Authors: S. B. Ellebæk, C. W. Fristrup, C. Hovendal, N. Qvist, L. Bundgaard, S. Salomon et al.
Notes: No additional benefit
Authors: K. Sahnan, A. Askari, S. O. Adegbola, P. J. Tozer, R. K. S. Phillips, A. Hart et al.
Notes: Women more likely to develop fistula
Short‐ and medium‐term outcomes following primary ileocaecal resection for Crohn’s disease in two specialist centres. BJS 2017; 104: 1713-1722.
Authors: A. de Buck van Overstraeten, E. J. Eshuis, S. Vermeire, G. Van Assche, M. Ferrante, G. R. D'Haens et al.
Notes: Clear margins and smoking cessation are key
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham electrical stimulation in patients with faecal incontinence. BJS 2017; 104: 1167-1176.
Authors: A. A. van der Wilt, G. Giuliani, C. Kubis, B. P. W. van Wunnik, I. Ferreira, S. O. Breukink et al.
Notes: Limited case for PTNS
Clinical assessment to determine the risk of bowel cancer using Symptoms, Age, Mass and Iron deficiency anaemia (SAMI). BJS 2017; 104: 1393-1404.
Authors: M. R. Thompson, D. P. O'Leary, K. Flashman, A. Asiimwe, B. G. Ellis, A. Senapati et al.
Notes: Can define high risk
One‐year results of the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis. BJS 2017; 104: 1382-1392.
Authors: J. K. Schultz, C. Wallon, L. Blecic, H. M. Forsmo, J. Folkesson, P. Buchwald et al.
Notes: Fewer stomas with lavage