The cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer

Background

Published decision analyses show that screening for colorectal cancer is cost-effective. However, because of the number of tests available, the optimal screening strategy in Canada is unknown. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of 10 strategies for colorectal cancer screening, as well as no screening, incorporating quality of life, noncompliance and data on the costs and benefits of chemotherapy.

Methods

We used a probabilistic Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 50-year-old average-risk Canadians without screening and with screening by each test. We populated the model with data from the published literature. We calculated costs from the perspective of a third-party payer, with inflation to 2007 Canadian dollars.

Results

Of the 10 strategies considered, we focused on three tests currently being used for population screening in some Canadian provinces: low-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test, performed annually; fecal immunochemical test, performed annually; and colonoscopy, performed every 10 years. These strategies reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer by 44%, 65% and 81%, and mortality by 55%, 74% and 83%, respectively, compared with no screening. These strategies generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $9159, $611 and $6133 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. The findings were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Colonoscopy every 10 years yielded the greatest net health benefit.

Interpretation

Screening for colorectal cancer is cost-effective over conventional levels of willingness to pay. Annual high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing, such as a fecal immunochemical test, or colonoscopy every 10 years offer the best value for the money in Canada.Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed in North America and the second leading cause of cancer death.^1,2 An effective population-based screening program is likely to decrease mortality associated with colorectal cancer^3–6 through earlier detection and to decrease incidence by allowing removal of precursor colorectal adenomas.^7,8 Professional societies and government-sponsored committees have released guidelines for screening of average-risk individuals for colorectal cancer by means of several testing options.^9–12 These tests vary in sensitivity, specificity, risk, costs and availability. With no published studies designed to directly compare screening strategies, decision analysis is a useful technique for examining the relative cost-effectiveness of these strategies.^13–21 Previous studies have shown that screening for colorectal cancer is cost-effective at conventional levels of willingness to pay, but no single strategy has emerged as clinically superior or economically dominant.²² The interpretations of economic evaluations in this area have been limited because investigators have not simultaneously accounted for the positive effects of screening on quality of life, the effect of noncompliance with screening schedules, and the greater efficacy and cost of more modern chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer. Furthermore, no study has included all of the strategies recommended in the 2008 guidelines of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.¹⁰Our objective was to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of 10 strategies for colorectal cancer screening, as well as the absence of a screening program. The current study is more complete than earlier studies because we included information on quality of life, noncompliance with screening and the efficacy observed in recent randomized trials of colorectal cancer treatments. The complete model is available in Appendix 1 (available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/cmaj.090845/DC1). This article focuses on the comparison of no screening and three screening strategies:¹ low-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test,² performed annually; fecal immunochemical test,³ performed annually; and colonoscopy, performed every 10 years. These three tests are currently being used or considered for population-based screening of average-risk individuals in some Canadian provinces.