IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0083959.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Evaluating Endoscopic Surveillance for Gastric Cancer for Populations with Low to Intermediate Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Hui Jun Zhou
  • Yock Young Dan
  • Nasheen Naidoo
  • Shu Chuen Li
  • Khay Guan Yeoh

Abstract

Background: Gastric cancer (GC) surveillance based on oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) appears to be a promising strategy for GC prevention. By evaluating the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance in Singaporean Chinese, this study aimed to inform the implementation of such a program in a population with a low to intermediate GC risk. Methods: Using a reference strategy of no OGD intervention, we evaluated four strategies: 2-yearly OGD surveillance, annual OGD surveillance, 2-yearly OGD screening and 2-yearly screening plus annual surveillance in Singaporean Chinese aged 50-69 years. From a perspective of the healthcare system, Markov models were built to simulate the life experience of the target population. The models projected discounted lifetime costs ($), quality adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) indicating the cost-effectiveness of each strategy against a Singapore willingness-to-pay of $46,200/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to identify the influential variables and their associated thresholds, and to quantify the influence of parameter uncertainties respectively. Results: With an ICER of $44,098/QALY, the annual OGD surveillance was the optimal strategy while the 2-yearly surveillance was the most cost-effective strategy (ICER = $25,949/QALY). The screening-based strategies were either extendedly dominated or cost-ineffective. The cost-effectiveness heterogeneity of the four strategies was observed across age-gender subgroups. Eight influential parameters were identified each with their specific thresholds to define the choice of optimal strategy. Accounting for the model uncertainties, the probability that the annual surveillance is the optimal strategy in Singapore was 44.5%. Conclusion: Endoscopic surveillance is potentially cost-effective in the prevention of GC for populations at low to intermediate risk. Regarding program implementation, a detailed analysis of influential factors and their associated thresholds is necessary. Multiple strategies should be considered in order to recommend the right strategy for the right population.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui Jun Zhou & Yock Young Dan & Nasheen Naidoo & Shu Chuen Li & Khay Guan Yeoh, 2013. "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Evaluating Endoscopic Surveillance for Gastric Cancer for Populations with Low to Intermediate Risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0083959
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083959
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083959&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0083959?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. Takeru Shiroiwa & Yoon‐Kyoung Sung & Takashi Fukuda & Hui‐Chu Lang & Sang‐Cheol Bae & Kiichiro Tsutani, 2010. "International survey on willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 422-437, April.
    2. Subramanian, Sujha & Tangka, Florence K.L. & Hoover, Sonja & DeGroff, Amy & Royalty, Janet & Seeff, Laura C., 2011. "Clinical and programmatic costs of implementing colorectal cancer screening: Evaluation of five programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 147-153, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    2. Maria Rubio-Valera & María Teresa Peñarrubia-María & Maria Iglesias-González & Martin Knapp & Paul McCrone & Marta Roig & Ramón Sabes-Figuera & Juan V. Luciano & Juan M. Mendive & Ana Gabriela Murruga, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of antidepressants versus active monitoring for mild-to-moderate major depressive disorder: a multisite non-randomized-controlled trial in primary care (INFAP study)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 703-713, July.
    3. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Vincent T Janmaat & Marco J Bruno & Suzanne Polinder & Sylvie Lorenzen & Florian Lordick & Maikel P Peppelenbosch & Manon C W Spaander, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-10, April.
    5. Ryen, Linda & Svensson, Mikael, 2014. "The Willingness to Pay for a QALY: a Review of the Empirical Literature," Karlstad University Working Papers in Economics 12, Karlstad University, Department of Economics.
    6. Claudia Schulz & Gisela Büchele & Raphael S. Peter & Dietrich Rothenbacher & Christian Brettschneider & Ulrich C. Liener & Clemens Becker & Kilian Rapp & Hans-Helmut König, 2021. "Health-economic evaluation of collaborative orthogeriatric care for patients with a hip fracture in Germany: a retrospective cohort study using health and long-term care insurance claims data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(6), pages 873-885, August.
    7. Jorge Barros-Garcia-Imhof & Andrés Jiménez-Alfonso & Inés Gómez-Acebo & María Fernández-Ortiz & Jéssica Alonso-Molero & Javier Llorca & Alejandro Gonzalez-Castro & Trinidad Dierssen-Sotos, 2022. "Perception of Medical Students on the Need for End-of-Life Care: A Q-Methodology Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-16, June.
    8. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    9. Hoa‐Thi‐Minh Nguyen & Tom Kompas & Roslyn I. Hickson, 2014. "Aid and the Control of Tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea: Is Australia's Assistance Cost‐Effective?," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(2), pages 364-378, May.
    10. Andrew Gallagher & Violetta Shersher & Duncan Mortimer & Helen Truby & Terry Haines, 2023. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Adjunctive Lifestyle Interventions for the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 225-242, March.
    11. Najme Moradi & Arash Rashidian & Shirin Nosratnejad & Alireza Olyaeemanesh & Marzieh Zanganeh & Leila Zarei, 2019. "The Worth of a Quality-Adjusted Life-Year in Patients with Diabetes: An Investigation Study using a Willingness-to-Pay Method," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 311-319, September.
    12. Samuel Herzog & Marian Shanahan & Peter Grimison & Anh Tran & Nicole Wong & Nicholas Lintzeris & John Simes & Martin Stockler & Rachael L. Morton, 2018. "Systematic Review of the Costs and Benefits of Prescribed Cannabis-Based Medicines for the Management of Chronic Illness: Lessons from Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 67-78, January.
    13. Dastan Bamwesigye, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Alternative Energies in Uganda: Energy Needs and Policy Instruments towards Zero Deforestation 2030 and Climate Change," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, January.
    14. Susan Geertshuis & Otto Krickl, 2013. "Value Judgements and Continuing Education," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 2(1), pages 123-141.
    15. Henrik Andersson & James K. Hammitt & Kristian Sundström, 2015. "Willingness to Pay and QALYs: What Can We Learn about Valuing Foodborne Risk?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 727-752, September.
    16. Shafie, A.A. & Hassali, M.A., 2013. "Willingness to pay for voluntary community-based health insurance: Findings from an exploratory study in the state of Penang, Malaysia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 272-276.
    17. Akazawa, Manabu & Yongue, Julia & Ikeda, Shunya & Satoh, Toshihiko, 2014. "Considering economic analyses in the revision of the preventive vaccination law: A new direction for health policy-making in Japan?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 127-134.
    18. Beth Woods & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2015. "Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research," Working Papers 109cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    19. Jun Li & Benjamin H K Yip & Chichiu Leung & Wankyo Chung & Kin On Kwok & Emily Y Y Chan & Engkiong Yeoh & Puihong Chung, 2018. "Screening for latent and active tuberculosis infection in the elderly at admission to residential care homes: A cost-effectiveness analysis in an intermediate disease burden area," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, January.
    20. Ronald Wielage & Megha Bansal & J. Andrews & Robert Klein & Michael Happich, 2013. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Duloxetine in Osteoarthritis: A US Private Payer Perspective," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 219-236, June.

    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:pone00:0083959. 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.