Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29695234›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2018

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of a colorectal cancer screening programme in a high adenoma prevalence scenario using MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model.

Arantzazu Arrospide, Isabel Idigoras, Javier Mar, Harry de Koning, Miriam van der Meulen, Myriam Soto-Gordoa, Jose Miguel Martinez-Llorente, Isabel Portillo, Eunate Arana-Arri, Oliver Ibarrondo and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

11 authors.

Arantzazu ArrospideGipuzkoa Primary Care - Integrated Health Care Organizations Research Unit, Alto Deba Integrated Health Care Organisation, Avda Navarra 16, 20500, Arrasate-Mondragón, Gipuzkoa, Spain. arantzazu.arrospideelgarresta@osakidetza.eus.ORCID 0000-0003-3537-6588
Isabel IdigorasBasque Country Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme, Basque Health Service, Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain.
Javier MarGipuzkoa Primary Care - Integrated Health Care Organizations Research Unit, Alto Deba Integrated Health Care Organisation, Avda Navarra 16, 20500, Arrasate-Mondragón, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
Harry de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Miriam van der MeulenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Myriam Soto-GordoaGipuzkoa Primary Care - Integrated Health Care Organizations Research Unit, Alto Deba Integrated Health Care Organisation, Avda Navarra 16, 20500, Arrasate-Mondragón, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
Jose Miguel Martinez-LlorenteAccounting Department, Alto Deba Integrated Health Care Organisation, Arrasate - Mondragón, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
Isabel PortilloBasque Country Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme, Basque Health Service, Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain.
Eunate Arana-ArriBioCruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, Bizkaia, Spain.
Oliver IbarrondoGipuzkoa Primary Care - Integrated Health Care Organizations Research Unit, Alto Deba Integrated Health Care Organisation, Avda Navarra 16, 20500, Arrasate-Mondragón, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Eusko Jaurlaritza 2013111156
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Basque Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme began in 2009 and the implementation has been complete since 2013. Faecal immunological testing was used for screening in individuals between 50 and 69 years old. Colorectal Cancer in Basque country is characterized by unusual epidemiological features given that Colorectal Cancer incidence is similar to other European countries while adenoma prevalence is higher. The object of our study was to economically evaluate the programme via cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses with microsimulation models.

methodsWe applied the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN)-Colon model to predict trends in Colorectal Cancer incidence and mortality and to quantify the short- and long-term effects and costs of the Basque Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme. The model was calibrated to the Basque demographics in 2008 and age-specific Colorectal Cancer incidence data in the Basque Cancer Registry from 2005 to 2008 before the screening begun. The model was also calibrated to the high adenoma prevalence observed for the Basque population in a previously published study. The multi-cohort approach used in the model included all the cohorts in the programme during 30 years of implementation, with lifetime follow-up. Unit costs were obtained from the Basque Health Service and both cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis were carried out.

resultsThe goodness-of-fit of the model adaptation to observed programme data was evidence of validation. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the savings from treatment were larger than the added costs due to screening. Thus, the Basque programme was dominant compared to no screening, as life expectancy increased by 29.3 days per person. The savings in the budget analysis appeared 10 years after the complete implementation of the programme. The average annual budget was €73.4 million from year 2023 onwards.

conclusionsThis economic evaluation showed a screening intervention with a major health gain that also produced net savings when a long follow-up was used to capture the late economic benefit. The number of colonoscopies required was high but remain within the capacity of the Basque Health Service. So far in Europe, no other population Colorectal Cancer screening programme has been evaluated by budget impact analysis.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdenomaAgedColorectal NeoplasmsComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPopulation SurveillancePrevalenceBudget impact analysisColorectal CancerCost-effectiveness analysisMass screening

Identifiers

PMID29695234
PMCPMC5918894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.