The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 237–250

Incremental net benefit and acceptability of alternative health policies: a case study of mass screening for colorectal cancer

  • Pauline Chauvin
  • Jean-Michel Josselin
  • Denis Heresbach
Original Paper

Abstract

The incremental net benefit (INB) and the related acceptability curves for public health programs provide valuable tools for decision making. We proposed to apply them to the assessment of mass screening of colorectal cancer. The now standard guaiac fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is already implemented in several countries. We considered the innovative immunological FOBT and computed tomography colonography (CTC) as competing screening technologies. Using biennial guaiac FOBT as the reference strategy, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of the following alternatives: biennial immunological FOBT, CTC every 5 years (strategy CTC5), and CTC every 10 years (strategy CTC10). Over a 30-year horizon and from the perspective of a third-party payer, we developed a Markov model on a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 subjects at average risk of colorectal cancer. Close expected net benefits between immunological FOBT and CTC5 induced uncertainty in the choice of the optimal strategy. Probabilistic sensibility analysis then suggested that below a willingness to pay (WTP) per life-years gained (LYG) of 8,587 €/LYG, CTC10 was optimal, while CTC5 would be preferred beyond a WTP of 8,587 €/LYG.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness Incremental net benefit Colorectal cancer Fecal occult blood test Computed tomography colonoscopy 

JEL Classification

I19 

References

  1. 1.
    Chevreul, K.: Colorectal cancer in France. Eur. J. Health Econ. 10(Suppl 1), S15–S20 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winawer, S.J., Zauber, A.G., Ho, M.N., et al.: Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N. Engl. J. Med. 329, 1977–1981 (1993)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goulard, H., Boussac-Zarebska, M., Ancelle-Park, R., Bloch, J.: French colorectal cancer screening pilot programme: results of the first round. J. Med. Screen. 15(3), 143–148 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening 2003/878/CE. Official journal of the European Union of 16 December 2003 no. L327/34-38. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:327:0034:0038:EN:PDF. Accessed 22 Sept 2010
  5. 5.
    Masseria, C.: Colorectal cancer in Italy: a review of current national and regional practice on screening and treatment. Eur. J. Health Econ. 10(Suppl 1), S41–S49 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schurer, W.: The status of colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands: past, present and future. Eur. J. Health Econ. 10(Suppl 1), S51–S56 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heresbach, D., Chauvin, P., Hess-Migliorretti, A., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with CT-Colonography according to a polyp size threshold for polypectomy. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 22(6), 716–723 (2010)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., Van Ballegooijen, M., Zauber, A.G., et al.: At what cost will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach. Int. J. Cancer 124, 1161–1168 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pickhardt, P.J., Hassan, C., Laghi, A., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer 109, 2213–2221 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stinnett, A.A., Mullahy, J.: Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med. Decis. Making 18, S68–S80 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Church, J.: Clinical significance of the small colorectal polyps. Dis. Colon Rectum. 47, 481–485 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hur, C., Chung, D.C., Schoen, R.E., Gazelle, G.S.: The management of small polyps found by virtual colonoscopy: results of a decision analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 5, 237–244 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brenner, H., Hoffmeister, M., Stegmaier, C., et al.: Risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by age and sex: estimates based on 840 149 screening colonoscopies. Gut 56, 1585–1589 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lejeune, C., Dancourt, V., Arveux, P., Bonithon-Kopp, C., Faivre, J.: Cost effectiveness analysis of screening for colorectal cancer in France using a guaiac test versus an immunochemical test. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 26, 40–47 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Official French coding.: http://www.atih.sante.fr/ (2007). Accessed 07 Dec 2010
  16. 16.
    Clerc, L., Jooste, J., Lejeune, C., et al.: Cost of care of colorectal cancers according to health care patterns and stage at diagnosis in France. Eur. J. Health Econ. 9, 361–367 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zauber, A.G., Lansdop-Vogelaar, I., Knudsen, A.B., et al.: Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening. Ann. Intern. Med. 149, 659–669 (2008)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mullhall, M.P., Veerapan, G.R., Jackson, J.L.: Meta-analysis: computed tomography colonography. Ann. Intern. Med. 142, 635–650 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Rijn, J., Reitsma, J.B., Stoker, J., et al.: Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 101, 343–350 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manfredi, S., Piette, C., Durand, G., et al.: Colonoscopy results of a French regional FOBT-based colorectal cancer screening program with high compliance. Endoscopy 40(5), 422–427 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Denis, B., Ruetsch, M., Strentz, P., et al.: Short term outcomes of the first round of a pilot colorectal cancer screening programme with guaiac based faecal occult blood test. Gut 56, 1579–1584 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Regula, J., Rupinski, M., Kraszewska, M., et al.: Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 1863–1872 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamaji, Y., Mitsushima, T., Ikuma, H., et al.: Incidence and recurrence rates of colorectal adenomas estimated by annually repeated colonoscopies on asymptomatic Japanese. Gut 53, 568–572 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barton, G.R., Briggs, A.H., Fenwick, E.A.L.: Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). Value Health 11, 886–897 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Briggs, A.H.: Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 5, 479–500 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bouvier, A.: Descriptive epidemiology of colorectal cancer in France. Bulletin d’épidémiologie hebdomadaire. INVS (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guittet, L., Bouvier, V., Mariotte, N., et al.: Comparison of a guaiac based and an immunochemical fecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer in a general average risk population. Gut 56, 210–214 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim, D.H., Pickhardt, P.J., Taylor, A.J., et al.: CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 1403–1412 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vijan, S., Hwang, I., Inadomi, J., Wong, R.K.H., et al.: The cost effectiveness of CT colonography in screening for colorectal neoplasia. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 102, 380–390 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, D., Muston, D., Sweet, A., et al.: Cost effectiveness of CT colonography for UK NHS colorectal cancer screening of asymptomatic adults aged 60–69 years. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy. 8, 141–154 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    French ministry of health. http://www.santejeunesse-sports.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/annexes-3.pdf. Accessed 02 Feb 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pauline Chauvin
    • 1
  • Jean-Michel Josselin
    • 1
  • Denis Heresbach
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of Rennes 1-CREM CNRS UMR6211Rennes CedexFrance
  2. 2.Gastroenterological DepartmentUniversity Hospital of Rennes, University of Rennes IRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations