ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2026
Economic Evaluation of Fecal Occult Blood Test and Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Indonesia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) and colonoscopy as Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening methods in Indonesia. It is hoped that the results will serve as a reference for developing an efficient and targeted early CRC screening policy.
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis comparing FOBT and colonoscopy for CRC screening in Indonesia was performed using a Markov model with a 40-year horizon. The analysis, from a healthcare payer perspective, included direct medical costs and QALYs. Parameters were sourced from literature and national data. Outcomes were lifetime costs, QALYs, and ICERs, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times GDP per capita. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses tested model uncertainty. Analyses were done using Microsoft® Excel.
resultCRC screening reduced both the incidence of colorectal cancer and CRC-related mortality compared to no screening. In terms of costs and outcomes, colonoscopy every 10 years produced the highest QALYs (2,114,459) and was the only strategy considered cost-effective compared to no screening, with an ICER of US$2,909.675/QALY, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold. While screening strategies incurred higher costs than no screening, colonoscopy was dominant when compared to both annual and biennial FOBT (ICERs: US$ -33,063.979/QALY and US$ -14,338.339/QALY, respectively). One-way sensitivity analysis identified cancer utility as key drivers of ICER variability. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results, with the majority of simulations favoring colonoscopy as the most cost-effective option.
conclusionColonoscopy every 10 years is the most cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening in Indonesia. It is cost-effective compared to no screening and dominant compared to annual or biennial FOBT.
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.