IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1004807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of adherence on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness: A modeling study

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaxin Xie
  • Xuesi Dong
  • Zilin Luo
  • Chenran Wang
  • Yadi Zheng
  • Xiaolu Chen
  • Zeming Guo
  • Xiaoyue Shi
  • Fei Wang
  • Wei Cao
  • Yongjie Xu
  • Le Wang
  • Weimiao Wu
  • Dong Hang
  • Lingbin Du
  • Ni Li

Abstract

Background: Adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains suboptimal in many countries, reducing its cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate how multistage uptake rates influence the health benefit and cost-effectiveness of various CRC screening strategies in the Chinese population, incorporating both traditional and emerging screening methods. Methods and findings: We developed a multistate Markov model (CRC-SIM) to evaluate the impact of multistep uptake on CRC screening. A hypothetical cohort of 100,000 individuals aged 40 was simulated and followed until 79 or death. Two-step screening strategies were modeled: initial screening followed by colonoscopy after a positive result. Traditional initial screening methods include: questionnaire-based risk assessment, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and questionnaire combined with FIT; Non-invasive biomarker-based initial strategies include a hypothetical test meeting the minimum standards of China National Medical Products Administration (NMPAmin), multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, and blood-based strategies. All strategies were modeled as one-time screenings, with outcomes projected for CRC cases, deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and a cost-effectiveness heatmap was conducted to assess the impact of multistep uptake (modeled in 10% steps) on economic outcomes. All strategies reduced CRC cases, deaths and increased QALYs compared to no screening, with biomarker-based strategies outperforming the traditional methods at the same uptake level (e.g., questionnaire combined with FIT prevented 224 (95% confidence interval (CI) [157, 292]) CRC cases and 151 (95% CI [109, 195]) deaths, whereas NMPAmin prevented 312 (95% CI [257, 360]) cases and 210 (95% CI [175, 241]) deaths at 100% uptake). The cost-effectiveness heatmap indicated that each 10% increase in initial and follow-up colonoscopy uptake improved ICERs in a non-linear pattern. The questionnaire combined with FIT was the most cost-effective strategy (ICER = $2,413 per QALY gained). Non-invasive biomarker-based tests were not cost-effective compared with the combined questionnaire and FIT strategy under current assumptions of test costs and identical uptake rate. Threshold analysis showed that non-invasive biomarker-based screening would become cost-effective if test costs fell below $131.7 or colonoscopy uptake increased to at least 70% for NMPAmin and 50% for blood-based tests and mt-sDNA. Limitations include the assumption of a one-time screening scenario; future iterations of the model and merging evidence in repeated screening will address these limitations. Conclusion: Improving screening participation could enhance health benefits and cost-efficiency in CRC screening. Questionnaire-based risk assessment combined with FIT was a cost-effective strategy in China, whereas non-invasive biomarker-based methods require cost reduction and higher uptake to justify adoption. These findings provide evidence for policymakers to optimize CRC screening programs. Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?: Jiaxin Xie, Xuesi Dong, Zilin Luo, and team use a multistate Markov model to quantify the long-term health and economic benefits of adhering to colorectal cancer screening, incorporating both traditional and biomarker-based initial screening methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaxin Xie & Xuesi Dong & Zilin Luo & Chenran Wang & Yadi Zheng & Xiaolu Chen & Zeming Guo & Xiaoyue Shi & Fei Wang & Wei Cao & Yongjie Xu & Le Wang & Weimiao Wu & Dong Hang & Lingbin Du & Ni Li, 2025. "The impact of adherence on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness: A modeling study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(11), pages 1-16, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004807
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004807
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004807&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004807?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
    ---><---

    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:pmed00:1004807. 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: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    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.