IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i7d10.1007_s40273-022-01160-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical Benefit and Cost Effectiveness of Risk-Stratified Gastric Cancer Screening Strategies in China: A Modeling Study

Author

Listed:
  • Shuxia Qin

    (Central South University)

  • Xuehong Wang

    (Central South University)

  • Sini Li

    (Central South University
    University of Sheffield)

  • Chongqing Tan

    (Central South University)

  • Xiaohui Zeng

    (Central South University)

  • Xia Luo

    (Central South University)

  • Lidan Yi

    (Central South University)

  • Liubao Peng

    (Central South University)

  • Meiyu Wu

    (Central South University)

  • Ye Peng

    (Central South University)

  • Liting Wang

    (Central South University)

  • Xiaomin Wan

    (Central South University)

Abstract

Background and Objective A new gastric cancer screening scoring system (NGCS) strategy was recommended for the early gastric cancer (GC) screening process in China. The current study aimed to assess the clinical benefits and the cost effectiveness of the NGCS strategy in GC high-risk areas of China from a societal perspective. Methods A Markov microsimulation model was developed to evaluate 30 alternative screening strategies with varying initiation age, including the NGCS strategy, the modified NGCS strategy, and the endoscopic screening strategy with various screening intervals. The primary outcomes included GC mortality, number of endoscopies, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost estimates were reported in 2021 USD (US$) and both costs and benefits were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model uncertainty. Results Screening with the NGCS strategy from age 40 years (40-NGCS) reduced the GC incidence by 86.4%, which provided the greatest benefit across strategies. Compared with all strategies, at a willingness-to pay threshold of US$17,922 per QALY, the 40-NGCS strategy was a leading cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of US$15,668 per QALY. Results were robust in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The probability of the 40-NGCS strategy being cost effective was 0.863. Conclusions The 40-NGCS strategy was an effective and cost-effective strategy to reduce GC incidence and mortality in China. The findings provide important evidence for decision makers to formulate and optimize targeted approaches for GC prevention and control policies in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuxia Qin & Xuehong Wang & Sini Li & Chongqing Tan & Xiaohui Zeng & Xia Luo & Lidan Yi & Liubao Peng & Meiyu Wu & Ye Peng & Liting Wang & Xiaomin Wan, 2022. "Clinical Benefit and Cost Effectiveness of Risk-Stratified Gastric Cancer Screening Strategies in China: A Modeling Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(7), pages 725-737, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01160-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01160-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01160-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-022-01160-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01160-8. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.