ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025
From planning to savings: CRC screening organization and cost-utility analysis of early CRC detection in Bulgaria.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Bulgaria and the second leading cause of cancer-related death. Bulgaria has increased CRC mortality, highlighting the urgent need for effective screening interventions. This study evaluated the operational outcomes and cost-utility of Bulgaria's first national CRC screening program.
methodsThe screening program targeted individuals aged 50-74 years via the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Free FIT kits were distributed primarily through laboratories and pharmacies, with placement guided by merchandising best practices to maximize visibility and uptake. A multichannel communication strategy, led by television, encouraged participation. Anonymous demographic, testing, and communication data were analysed to evaluate campaign performance. A centrally coordinated model, organized by the Lachezar Tsotsorkov Foundation, ensured consistency, efficiency, and national reach. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) based on a Markov model with a lifetime horizon was conducted from the payer's perspective, comparing screening versus no screening. Transition probabilities were sourced from published analyses in the Netherlands, the SEER database, and a Danish study. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty.
resultsA total of 93,381 individuals were screened, exceeding the original target by 86%. Of these, 14.2% tested positive. While women represented 63.3% of the participants, men had a higher positivity rate (18.2% vs. 11.9%). In the target population (individuals aged 50-74 years), 9,380 (14.4%) tests were positive. The most influential communication channel was television (45.1%), followed by personal networks (24.6%). The cost per participant was calculated at €7.84 (BGN 15.34), which includes the cost of the tests, management expenses and promotion of the screening program. The results of the CUA estimates €67.07 (BGN 131.18) savings and +1.58 QALY gained per patient detected, projecting an incremental national gross domestic product contribution of up to €15.9 million (assuming full return to work capacity per quality-adjusted life year and actual productivity gains).
conclusionA centrally coordinated, data-responsive, and well-communicated screening program can achieve high participation and early detection. The presented model offers a scalable cost-effective (feasible and economically justified) framework for national CRC prevention efforts in Bulgaria and other settings facing rising CRC burdens.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.