UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstract for Reference 26

of 'A short primer on cost-effectiveness analysis'

26
TI
Stool DNA testing to screen for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
AU
Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Kuntz KM, Knudsen AB, Wilschut JA, Zauber AG, van Ballegooijen M
SO
Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(6):368.
 
BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare&Medicaid Services considered whether to reimburse stool DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the conditions under which stool DNA testing could be cost-effective compared with the colorectal cancer screening tests currently reimbursed by the Centers for Medicare&Medicaid Services.
DESIGN: Comparative microsimulation modeling study using 2 independently developed models.
DATA SOURCES: Derived from literature.
TARGET POPULATION: A cohort of persons aged 65 years. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted, in which a cohort of persons aged 50 years was studied.
TIME HORIZON: Lifetime.
PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer.
INTERVENTION: Stool DNA test every 3 or 5 years in comparison with currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Life expectancy, lifetime costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and threshold costs.
RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Assuming a cost of $350 per test, strategies of stool DNA testing every 3 or 5 years yielded fewer life-years and higher costs than the currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Screening with the stool DNA test would be cost-effective at a per-test cost of $40 to $60 for stool DNA testing every 3 years, depending on the simulation model used. There were no levels of sensitivity and specificity for which stool DNA testing would be cost-effective at its current cost of $350 per test. Stool DNA testing every 3 years would be cost-effective at a cost of $350 per test if the relative adherence to stool DNA testing were at least 50% better than that with other screening tests.
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: None of the results changed substantially when a cohort of persons aged 50 years was considered.
LIMITATION: No pathways other than the traditional adenoma-carcinomasequence were modeled.
CONCLUSION: Stool DNA testing could be a cost-effective alternative for colorectal cancer screening if the cost of the test substantially decreased or if its availability would entice a large fraction of otherwise unscreened persons to receive screening.
AD
Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. i.vogelaar@erasmusmc.nl
PMID