ArticleBMC health services research2026
Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program in a cancer center.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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.
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) screening reduces cancer-specific mortality and is widely recommended by international agencies. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is the preferred strategy for population-based screening. Although FIT-based screening is considered cost-effective internationally, no local evidence is available, and implementing such a program may require substantial resources. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact (BI) of introducing a FIT-based CRC screening program for the insured population of the Fundación Arturo López Pérez (FALP) Cancer Center.
methodsA Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the FIT screening program compared with no screening. Healthy beneficiaries aged 50–69 years were invited to undergo FIT every two years. Expected costs, life-years gained (LYG), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated, along with the BI. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed, and co-payment scenarios involving out-of-pocket expenses were also explored.
resultsThe FIT-based CRC screening program was cost-effective across all scenarios analyzed, and even in a co-payment scenario it was dominant over no screening. FIT adherence and FIT positivity rate had the greatest influence on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Although the ICER indicated a favorable cost-effectiveness profile, BI estimates for the base-case scenario highlighted the substantial financial burden of implementing the program. Co-payment scenarios markedly reduced BI, making the program more affordable.
conclusionsFIT-based CRC screening is a cost-effective strategy for the FALP-insured population. However, its significant budgetary impact may hinder implementation. Shared funding mechanisms could mitigate these financial barriers and enhance program feasibility.
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.