ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2020
Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colon cancer screening strategies in the context of the French national screening program.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colorectal cancer screening methods: A systematic review.Medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Health Economic Evaluations of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review.Cancer medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Expected Values of Artificial Intelligence in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Artificial Intelligence in Capsule Endoscopy Consortium Position Statement.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Health economics evaluation of screening for sarcopenia among community-dwelling older persons.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Contemporary Landscape of Medical Technology in Gastroenterology Between 2013 and 2023.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Effects of sigmoidoscopy screening (including colonoscopy) on colorectal cancer: APreventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Explorative cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer recurrence detection with next-generation sequencing liquid biopsy in Spain, France, and Germany.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Validation of a Model Estimating the Budget Impact of Video Capsule Endoscopy for Surveillance of Crohn's Disease in an Italian Center.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Clinical utility of colon capsule endoscopy: a moving target?Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy in France: how many people are actually covered? Focus on the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Article
- Review: Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA nationwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program was set up in France from 2009 for average-risk, asymptomatic people aged 50-74 years based on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test [faecal immunochemical test (FIT)] every 2 years, followed by colonoscopy if positive. The European standard recommends a participation rate of 45% for the program to be cost-effective, yet the latest published rate in France was 34%. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives taking real-world participation rates into account.
methodsEight screening strategies were compared, based either on a screening test (Guaiac or FIT testing, blood-based, stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy) followed by full colonoscopy if positive or direct colonoscopy. A microsimulation model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness associated with each strategy.
resultsCompared with no screening, FIT was associated with a 14.0 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increase of €50,520 per 1000 individuals, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3600/QALY. Only stool DNA and blood-based testing were associated with a QALY increase compared with FIT, with stool DNA weakly dominated by blood-based testing, and the latter associated with an ICER of €154,600/QALY compared with FIT. All other strategies were dominated by FIT.
conclusionFIT every 2 years appears to be the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy when taking into account a real-world participation rate of 34%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.