IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0172864.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening

Author

Listed:
  • S Lucas Goede
  • Linda Rabeneck
  • Marjolein van Ballegooijen
  • Ann G Zauber
  • Lawrence F Paszat
  • Jeffrey S Hoch
  • Jean H E Yong
  • Sonja Kroep
  • Jill Tinmouth
  • Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar

Abstract

Background: The ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50–74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms. Methods: We used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity. Results: Compared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50–74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50–74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45–80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300. Interpretation: Compared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.

Suggested Citation

  • S Lucas Goede & Linda Rabeneck & Marjolein van Ballegooijen & Ann G Zauber & Lawrence F Paszat & Jeffrey S Hoch & Jean H E Yong & Sonja Kroep & Jill Tinmouth & Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, 2017. "Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0172864
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172864
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172864&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0172864?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim Jeong & John Cairns, 2013. "Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Joanna Siegel & George Torrance & Louise Russell & Bryan Luce & Milton Weinstein & Marthe Gold, 1997. "Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 159-168, February.
    3. Sandjar Djalalov & Linda Rabeneck & George Tomlinson & Karen E. Bremner & Robert Hilsden & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2014. "A Review and Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 809-818, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joan Mendivil & Marilena Appierto & Susana Aceituno & Mercè Comas & Montserrat Rué, 2019. "Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bärnighausen, Till & Bloom, David E., 2009. ""Conditional scholarships" for HIV/AIDS health workers: Educating and retaining the workforce to provide antiretroviral treatment in sub-Saharan Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 544-551, February.
    2. Joan Mendivil & Marilena Appierto & Susana Aceituno & Mercè Comas & Montserrat Rué, 2019. "Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.
    3. G. Koning & E. Adang & P. Stalmeier & F. Keus & P. Vriens & C. Laarhoven, 2013. "TIPP and Lichtenstein modalities for inguinal hernia repair: a cost minimisation analysis alongside a randomised trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 1027-1034, December.
    4. Lixian Zhong & Vickie Pon & Sandy Srinivas & Nicole Nguyen & Meghan Frear & Sherry Kwon & Cynthia Gong & Robert Malmstrom & Leslie Wilson, 2013. "Therapeutic Options in Docetaxel-Refractory Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    5. Maria E. Mayorga & Emmett J. Lodree & Justin Wolczynski, 2017. "The optimal assignment of spontaneous volunteers," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(9), pages 1106-1116, September.
    6. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    7. Christopher J.L. Murray & David B. Evans & Arnab Acharya & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen, 2000. "Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 235-251, April.
    8. Ágota Szende & Z. Mogyorósy & N. Muszbek & J. Nagy & G. Pallos & C Dözsa, 2002. "Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 3(3), pages 196-206, September.
    9. James Kingsley & Siddharth Karanth & Frances Lee Revere & Deepak Agrawal, 2016. "Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates – A Modeling Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.
    11. Hla-Hla Thein & Yao Qiao & Ahmad Zaheen & Nathaniel Jembere & Gonzalo Sapisochin & Kelvin K W Chan & Eric M Yoshida & Craig C Earle, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with non-curative or palliative intent for hepatocellular carcinoma in the real-world setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Tristan M Snowsill & Neil A J Ryan & Emma J Crosbie & Ian M Frayling & D Gareth Evans & Chris J Hyde, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Nils Gutacker & Chris Bojke & Silvio Daidone & Nancy Devlin & Andrew Street, 2013. "Hospital Variation in Patient-Reported Outcomes at the Level of EQ-5D Dimensions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 804-818, August.
    14. Kathleen Manipis & Stephen Goodall & Paul Hanly & Rosalie Viney & Alison Pearce, 2021. "Employer survey to estimate the productivity friction period," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(2), pages 255-266, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0172864. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.