4.1 Article

Estimating cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in Vietnam

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2021.1940963

Keywords

Colorectal cancer; cost-effectiveness; screening; Vietnam

Funding

  1. National Cancer Center [NCC-2010303]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of a colorectal cancer screening program in Vietnam, showing that annual screening is cost-effective and robust to parameter estimates variations. The findings could potentially be used to develop a national colorectal cancer screening program.
Background:Presently, there are no national screening programs for cancer in Vietnam. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of an annual colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program from the healthcare service provider's perspective for the Vietnamese population. Methods:The economic model consisted of adecision tree and aMarkov model. Adecision tree was constructed for comparing two strategies, including ascreening group with aguaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and ano-screening group in general populations, aged 50 years and above. The Markov model projected outcomes over a25-year horizon. The cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) represented by costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results:When compared with no screening, ICER was $1,388per QALY with an increased cost of $ 43.98 and again of 0.032 QALY (Willingness to pay $2,590). The uptake rate of gFOBT, cost of colonoscopy, and the total cost of screening contributed to the largest impact on the ICER. PSA showed that results were robust to variation in parameter estimates, with annual screening remaining cost-effective compared with no screening. Conclusion:Our screening strategy could be considered cost-effective compared to ano screening strategy. Our findings could be potentially used to develop aCRC national screening program.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available