Cost effectiveness of CT colonography for UK NHS colorectal cancer screening of asymptomatic adults aged 60–69 years
- 223 Downloads
Screening of populations at risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) allows the detection and successful treatment of tumours and their precursor polyps. The current UK CRC screening programme is faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), despite evidence from modelling studies to suggest that more cost-effective technologies exist.
To assess the cost effectiveness of CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening from the perspective of the UK NHS.
A state-transition Markov model was constructed to estimate lifetime costs and health outcomes of a cohort of individuals screened at age 60–69 years using four different CRC screening technologies: FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, optical colonoscopy and CTC.
CTC screening offered every 10 years was cost saving compared with the current UK programme of biennial FOBT screening. This strategy also yielded greater health benefits (QALYs and life-years) than biennial FOBT screening. The model fit observed CRC epidemiology data well and was robust to changes in underlying parameter values. CTC remained cost effective under a range of assumptions in the univariate sensitivity analysis. However, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CTC dominated FOBT in only 5.9% of simulations and was cost effective at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained in 48% of simulations.
CTC has the potential to provide a cost-effective option for CRC screening in the UK NHS and may be cost saving compared with the current programme of biennial FOBT. Further analysis is required to assess the impact of introducing CTC to the UK CRC screening programme on the NHS budget and capacity.
- 1.Office of National Statistics. Cancer statistics: registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2005, England [series MB1, no. 36]. Newport: Office for National Statistics, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/down loads/theme_health/MB1_36/MB1_No36_2005.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
- 3.Trueman P, Lowson K, Bending M, et al. Bowel cancer services: costs and benefits. York: York Health Economics Consortium, 2007Google Scholar
- 7.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancers: a manual update. London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
- 14.Tappenden P, Eggington S, Nixon R, et al. Colorectal cancer screening options appraisal: cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and resource impact of alternative screening options for colorectal cancer. Report to the English Bowel Cancer Screening Working Group. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research, 2004 SepGoogle Scholar
- 18.Weller D, Moss S, Butler P, et al. English pilot of bowel cancer screening: an evaluation ofthe second round. 2006 Feb [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/pilot-2nd-round-evaluation.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
- 29.Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2007. Kent: Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2007Google Scholar
- 32.Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006Google Scholar
- 33.UK NHS Department of Health. Payment by results (PbR) in 2007–08 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_062914 [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]
- 34.Audit study of patients with colorectal cancer undertaken in the Wessex region 1991–1995. Bristol: South West Cancer Intelligence Service, 2005 (Data on file)Google Scholar
- 35.Smith JJ, Cornish J, Tekkis PP, et al. The national bowel cancer audit project 2007. Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nbocap.org.uk/resources/reports/report2007.pdf [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
- 39.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008Google Scholar
- 40.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Developing costing tools: methods guide. London: NICE, 2008Google Scholar
- 41.UK NHS. NHS reference costs 2006–2007. London: NHS, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_082571 [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar
- 45.Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58(3): 130–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Xiong T, Richardson M, Woodroffe R, et al. Incidental lesions found on CT colonography: their nature and frequency. Br J Radiol 2005; 78(925): 2 -9Google Scholar
- 48.Halloran SP, Snowball J. How good is the guaiac-based faecal occult blood test for population screening of colo-rectal cancer? [abstract OP170]. Gastro 2009; 2009 Nov 21–25; LondonGoogle Scholar
- 50.UK NHS Department of Health. Cancer reform strategy [product no. 283524]. London: Department of Health, 2007 Dec 3 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_081006 [Accessed 2010 Mar 22]Google Scholar