17.01.2013 Views

Clinical Practice Guidelines - National Health and Medical Research ...

Clinical Practice Guidelines - National Health and Medical Research ...

Clinical Practice Guidelines - National Health and Medical Research ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 22.5 Summary of findings from reviews of cost-effectiveness of screening<br />

Study Country Study questions Conclusion<br />

Deenadayalu <strong>and</strong><br />

Rex 46<br />

Redaelli et al 47<br />

Inadomi 11<br />

Pignone et al 48<br />

Pignone <strong>and</strong><br />

Levin 49<br />

258<br />

United<br />

States<br />

United<br />

States<br />

United<br />

States<br />

United<br />

States<br />

United<br />

States<br />

Review of costeffectiveness<br />

evidence<br />

of FDNA vs various<br />

strategies<br />

Review of evidence<br />

for alternative<br />

screening strategies<br />

Review of costeffectiveness<br />

of<br />

screening for<br />

colorectal neoplasia<br />

Systematic review of<br />

evidence for FOBT yrly<br />

vs FSIG 5yrly vs FOBT<br />

yrly + FSIG 5yrly vs<br />

DCBE 5yrly vs COL<br />

10yrly<br />

Review of<br />

developments in<br />

screening with FOBT,<br />

BE, DCBE, COL,<br />

FSIG, DNA <strong>and</strong> CTC<br />

The prevention, early detection <strong>and</strong> management of colorectal cancer<br />

Initial assessments indicate FDNA is<br />

cost-effective (studies cite cost/QALY<br />

gained ranges for FDNA of $US674–<br />

9120 [$A940–12,721] <strong>and</strong> FDNA<br />

5yrly/COL10yrly of $US14,528–17,095<br />

[$A20,265–23,845]). One study indicated<br />

FDNA 4yrly is cost-effective vs<br />

COL10yrly if sensitivity to detect cancer<br />

<strong>and</strong> adenoma = 90% <strong>and</strong> 70%<br />

respectively.<br />

Most screening strategies have ICERs of<br />

approx $US40,000 ($A59,098)/LYG.<br />

FOBT has shown best positive results in<br />

terms of both clinical <strong>and</strong> economic<br />

outcomes.<br />

Several strategies (FOBT, FOBT/FSIG,<br />

COL, DCBE, alone or in combination)<br />

are cost-effective. Costs/LYG range from<br />

$US8100–42,311 ($A11,967–62,512).<br />

Cost/cancer detected range from<br />

$US6851–13,352 ($A10,123–19,727).<br />

However, determining ‘best’ strategy is<br />

difficult given the differences in studies<br />

(e.g. strategies compared, screening<br />

intervals, assumptions, costing methods).<br />

Screening appears cost-effective vs no<br />

screening, but a single optimal strategy<br />

cannot be determined. Cost-effectiveness<br />

ratios range from $US5691–39,359<br />

($A9073–62,747)/LYG (most between<br />

$US10–20,000 [$A15,943–31,885/LYS).<br />

No one strategy was found to be<br />

consistently the most cost-effective or to<br />

have the best ICER. There is insufficient<br />

evidence to determine best starting <strong>and</strong><br />

stopping age.<br />

Several methods are cost-effective vs no<br />

screening, but current evidence is not<br />

sufficient to determine most effective or<br />

cost-effective. ICERs range from<br />

$US10,000–25,000 ($A15,943–<br />

39,856)/LYG. DNA <strong>and</strong> CTC show early<br />

promise.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!