DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Markov's Modeling for Screening Strategies for Colorectal Cancer

  • Barouni, Mohsen (Research Center for Health Services Management, Kerman University of medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Larizadeh, Mohammad Hassan (Research Center for Health Services Management, Kerman University of medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Sabermahani, Asma (Research Center for Health Services Management, Kerman University of medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ghaderi, Hossien (Health Economics Department, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2012.10.31

Abstract

Economic decision models are being increasingly used to assess medical interventions. Advances in this field are mainly due to enhanced processing capacity of computers, availability of specific software to perform the necessary tasks, and refined mathematical techniques. We here estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of ten strategies for colon cancer screening, as well as no screening, incorporating quality of life, noncompliance and data on the costs and profit of chemotherapy in Iran. We used a Markov model to measure the costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy of a 50-year-old average-risk Iranian without screening and with screening by each test. In this paper, we tested the model with data from the Ministry of Health and published literature. We considered costs from the perspective of a health insurance organization, with inflation to 2011, the Iranian Rial being converted into US dollars. We focused on three tests for the 10 strategies considered currently being used for population screening in some Iranians provinces (Kerman, Golestan Mazandaran, Ardabil, and Tehran): low-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test, performed annually; fecal immunochemical test, performed annually; and colonoscopy, performed every 10 years. These strategies reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer by 39%, 60% and 76%, and mortality by 50%, 69% and 78%, respectively, compared with no screening. These approaches generated ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) of $9067, $654 and $8700 per QALY (quality-adjusted life year), respectively. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of various scales on the economic evaluation of screening. The results were sensitive to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Colonoscopy every ten years yielded the greatest net health value. Screening for colon cancer is economical and cost-effective over conventional levels of WTP8.

Keywords

References

  1. Collins JF, Lieberman DA, Durbin TE, et al (2005). Curacy 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, 18, 81-5.
  2. Goya M. Iranian Annual Cancer Registration Report 2005/2006. Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Health Deputy, Center for Disease Control and Prevention [In Persian]; 2007.
  3. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, et al (2010). Results of screening colonoscopy among persons 40 to 49 years of age. N En Med, 3, 1781-5.
  4. Leddin D, Robert MD (2004). Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation: Guidelines on colon cancer screening. Can J Gastroenterol, 12, 93-9.
  5. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al (2005). Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA, 19.
  6. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG (2009). One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon. N Engl J Med, 15, 283.
  7. Naghavi M (2009). The burden of disease and injury in Iran 2003. Popul Health Metr, 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7954-7-9
  8. National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program. Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov), 2004:1230-35.
  9. Regula J, Rupinski M, Kraszewska E (2006). Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med, 18, 1863-72.
  10. Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B, et al (2008). Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society, 6, 1865-71.
  11. Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A (2009). Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med, 19, 2061-8.
  12. Strul H, Kariv R, Leshno M, et al (2006). The prevalence rate and anatomic location of colorectal adenoma and cancer detected by colonoscopy in average-risk, Med J, 2, 230-50
  13. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al (2006). Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology, 6, 1853
  14. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, et al (2009). Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med, 5, 659-65.

Cited by

  1. Diagnostic Relevance of Overexpressed Serine Threonine Tyrosine Kinase/Novel Oncogene with Kinase Domain (STYK1/NOK) mRNA in Colorectal Cancer vol.15, pp.16, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.16.6685
  2. Diet and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Asia - a Systematic Review vol.16, pp.13, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.13.5389
  3. Preferences and Acceptance of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Thailand vol.16, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.6.2269