Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39962941›Full record

ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2025

Cost Utility Analysis of National Cancer Screening Program for Gastric Cancer in Korea: A Markov Model Analysis.

Seowoo Bae, Hyewon Lee, Eun Young Her, Kyeongmin Lee, Joon Sung Kim, Jeonghoon Ahn, Il Ju Choi, Jae Kwan Jun, Kui Son Choi, Mina Suh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Early detection of gastrointestinal cancers in low- and middle-income countries: A risk-stratified framework and implementation roadmap.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026
    Review
  5. Targeting ferroptosis inInternational journal of oncology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Seowoo BaeNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8123-388X
Hyewon LeeNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6915-329X
Eun Young HerNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7195-5718
Kyeongmin LeeGraduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2629-6669
Joon Sung KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9158-1012
Jeonghoon AhnDepartment of Health Convergence, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0177-0192
Il Ju ChoiCenter for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8339-9824
Jae Kwan JunNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1647-0675
Kui Son ChoiNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5336-3874
Mina SuhNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8101-7493

Funding

Grant-in-Aid for Cancer ResearchNational Cancer Center 2210850-3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP.

methodsThe hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or "no limit"). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted.

resultsThe endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy.

conclusionEndoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerStomach NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRepublic of KoreaEndoscopyGastrointestinal CancerIncremental Cost-Utility RatioSensitivity and Scenario Analysis

Identifiers

PMID39962941
PMCPMC11832884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.