4.7 Article

What is the most cost-effective population-based cancer screening program for Chinese women?

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 617-624

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.0210

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To develop a policy-relevant generalized cost-effectiveness (CE) model of population-based cancer screening for Chinese women. Methods Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted and associated screening and treatment costs under population-based screening using cervical cytology ( cervical cancer), mammography ( breast cancer), and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, FOBT plus sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy ( colorectal cancer) were estimated, from which average and incremental CE ratios were generated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess stochasticity, parameter uncertainty, and model assumptions. Results Cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers were together responsible for 13,556 DALYs ( in a 1: 4: 3 ratio, respectively) in Hong Kong's 3.4 million female population annually. All status quo strategies were dominated, thus confirming the suboptimal efficiency of opportunistic screening. Current patterns of screening averted 471 DALYs every year, which could potentially be more than doubled to 1,161 DALYs under the same screening and treatment budgetary threshold of US $50 million with 100% Pap coverage every 4 years and 30% coverage of colonoscopy every 10 years. With higher budgetary caps, biennial mammographic screening starting at age 50 years can be introduced. Conclusion Our findings have informed how best to achieve allocative efficiency in deploying scarce cancer care dollars but must be coupled with better integrated care planning, improved intersectoral coordination, increased resources, and stronger political will to realize the potential health and economic gains as demonstrated.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available