Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27194458›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016

The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Marjolein J E Greuter, Johannes Berkhof, Remond J A Fijneman, Erhan Demirel, Jie-Bin Lew, Gerrit A Meijer, Jaap Stoker, Veerle M H Coupé

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Cost analysis of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography in Italy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marjolein J E Greuter1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Johannes Berkhof1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Remond J A Fijneman2 Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Erhan Demirel1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jie-Bin Lew3 Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Australia.
Gerrit A Meijer2 Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jaap Stoker4 Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Veerle M H Coupé1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveImaging may be promising for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, since it has test characteristics comparable with colonoscopy but is less invasive. We aimed to assess the potential of CT colonography (CTC) and MR colonography (MRC) in terms of (cost-effectiveness) using the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model.

methodsWe compared several CTC and MRC strategies with 5- or 10-yearly screening intervals with no screening, 10-yearly colonoscopy screening and biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. We assumed trial-based participation rates in the base-case analyses and varied the rates in sensitivity analyses. Incremental lifetime costs and health effects were estimated from a healthcare perspective.

resultsThe health gain of CTC and MRC was similar and ranged from 0.031 to 0.048 life-year gained compared with no screening, for 2-5 screening rounds. Lifetime costs per person for MRC strategies were €60-110 higher than those for CTC strategies with an equal number of screening rounds. All imaging-based strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. FIT screening was the dominant screening strategy, leading to most LYG and highest cost-savings. Compared with three rounds of colonoscopy screening, CTC with five rounds was found to be cost-effective in an incremental analysis of imaging strategies. Assumptions on screening participation have a major influence on the ordering of strategies in terms of costs and effects.

conclusionCTC and MRC have potential for CRC screening, compared with no screening and compared with three rounds of 10-yearly colonoscopy screening. When taking FIT screening as the reference, imaging is not cost-effective. Participation is an important driver of effectiveness and cost estimates. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first study to assess the cost-effectiveness of MRC screening for CRC.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overColonColonography, Computed TomographicColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRectum

Identifiers

PMID27194458
PMCPMC5257302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.