Abstract
We analyze several colorectal cancer screening methods. We begin with an existing deterministic model of the colorectal cancer growth-and-development model. Using judgments from two knowledgeable experts on colorectal cancer, we incorporate probability distributions for important parameters in the model. The analysis proceeds in three phases: First is a straightforward Monte Carlo simulation that includes uncertainty about structural parameters, the results of which identify five dominant screening strategies in terms of the expected number of cancers prevented and expected cost per life-year saved. The next part of the analysis develops a two-attribute utility function to rank order the screening regimens. The results show the same top five, with the top-ranked strategy being colonoscopy every three years. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates the robustness of the results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cancer Facts and Figures 2001 (American Cancer Society, Atlanta, 2001).
L. Ries, C. Kosary, B. Hankey, B. Miller, L. Clegg and B. Edwards, eds., SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1996 (National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, NIH Publication 99-2789, 1999).
J. Wagner, S. Tunis, M. Brown, A. Ching and R. Almeida, Cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults, in: Prevention and Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer, eds. G. Young, P. Rozen and B. Levin (WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1996).
M. Jouini and R. Clemen, Copula models for aggregating expert opinions, Operations Research 44 (1996) 444–457.
J. Lipscomb, M. Weinstein and G. Torrance, Time preference, in: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, eds. M. Gold, J. Siegel, L. Russell and M. Weinstein (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996).
Medicode, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT (1997).
C. Lacke, Decision analytic modeling of colorectal cancer screening Policies, Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University (1998).
R. Clemen, Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis, 2nd edn. (Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA, 1996).
M. Meyer and J. Booker, Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgement: A Practical Guide (Academic Press, London, 1991).
M. Morgan and M. Henrion, Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990).
BestFit User's Guide (Palisade Corporation, Decker, NY, 1996).
S. French, Group consensus probability distributions: A critical survey, in: Bayesian Statistics, Vol. 2, eds. J. Bernardo, M. DeGroot, D. Lindley and A. Smith (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985).
C. Genest and J. Zidek, Combining probability distributions: A critique and annotated bibliography, Statistical Science 1 (1986) 114–135.
R. Clemen and R. Winkler, Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis, Risk Analysis 19 (1999) 187–203.
A. Smith, P. Ryan and J. Evans, The effect of neglecting correlations when propagating uncertainty and estimating the population distribution of risk, Risk Analysis 12 (1992) 467–474.
E. Frees and E. Valdez, Understanding relationships using copulas, North American Actuarial Journal 2 (1998) 1–25.
R. Nelsen, An Introduction to Copulas (Springer, New York, 1999).
R. Clemen and T. Reilly, Correlations and copulas for decision and risk analysis, Management Science 45 (1999) 208–224.
A. Sklar, Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges, Publications de l'Institut Statistique de l'Université de Paris 8 (1959) 229–231.
R. Clemen, G. Fischer and R. Winkler, Assessing dependence: Some experimental results, Management Science, in press.
R. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs (Wiley, New York, 1976).
D. Rex, E. Rahmani, J. Haseman, G. Lemmel, S. Kaster and J. Buckley, Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice, Gastroenterology 112(1) (January, 1997) 17–23.
S. Winawer, E. Stewart and A. Zauber, A comparison of colonoscopy and double contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. New England Journal of Medicine 342(24) (June 2000) 1766–1772.
D. Podolsky, Going the distance – the case for true colorectal-cancer screening, New England Journal ofMedicine 343(3) (July 2000) 207–208.
D. Lieberman, D. Weiss, J. Bond, D. Ahnen, H. Garewal and G. Chejfec, Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer, New England Journal of Medicine 343(3) (July 2000) 162–168.
T. Imperiale, D. Wagner, C. Lin, G. Larkin, J. Rogge and D. Ransohoff, Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings, New England Journal of Medicine 343(3) (July 2000) 169–174.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clemen, R.T., Lacke, C.J. Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening Regimens. Health Care Management Science 4, 257–267 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011886010184
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011886010184