Fecal immunochemical testing best and most cost-effective method for screening for colorectal cancer

Nov 23, 2010

a test that detects blood in the stool, has high sensitivity and specificity, and might improve participation rates through increased patient acceptability—reduces the risk of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer related deaths, and reduces healthcare costs in comparison to all other screening strategies and to no screening. These are the conclusions of a complete economic evaluation performed by Braden Manns and colleagues from the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and published in this week's PLoS Medicine.

Clinical guidelines recommends screening for colorectal cancer in average risk individuals from 50 years old, yet some countries, such as the UK, do not currently have population-based colorectal . Also, many countries with colorectal cancer screening programs do not offer a choice of screening method. In order to inform health policy decision making, the authors used an incremental cost utility analysis, a sophisticated modelling technique, and two hypothetical patient cohorts (individuals with an "average risk", ie no family history of colorectal cancer, aged 50-64 and 65-75) to compare different colorectal cancer screening methods. In their analysis, the authors considered all costs, such as treatment costs, and non-medical costs (such as costs of travelling to the screening centre), associated with each colorectal cancer screening method. The modelling was based on assumptions concordant with a North American context.

The authors found that annual fecal immunochemical testing was more effective and less costly compared to all strategies (including no screening). Using this screening modality, among the lifetimes of 100,000 average-risk patients, the number of deaths from colorectal cancer was reduced from 1393 to 457. Even after the authors accounted for many different scenarios, screening for colorectal cancer with fecal immunochemical testing remained the most cost effective screening option.

The authors conclude: "Health policy decision makers should consider prioritizing funding for screening using fecal immunochemical testing."

Explore further: Urine HPV test could offer non-invasive alternative to conventional smear, improve screening uptake

More information: Heitman SJ, Hilsden RJ, Au F, Dowden S, Manns BJ (2010) Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk North Americans: An Economic Evaluation. PLoS Med 7(11): e1000370. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000370

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Colorectal cancer screening in Canada is cost-effective

Jul 12, 2010

Colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective and offers the best value for provincial health ministries in Canada, states an article in CMAJ. A high sensitivity fecal test, such as the fecal immunochemical test, or colono ...

Not all doctors follow cancer screening guidelines

Oct 14, 2010

Only one-fifth of primary care physicians in the US follow practice guidelines for colorectal cancer screening for all the tests they recommend, according to Dr. Robin Yabroff from the National Cancer Institute and her colleagues. ...

Family history and screening for colorectal cancer

Jun 09, 2008

A new study indicates that African Americans with a family history of colorectal cancer are less likely to be screened than African Americans at average risk for the disease. There is also some evidence to indicate that AA ...

Recommended for you

Many throat cancer patients can skip neck surgery

4 hours ago

A new study shows that patients with human papillomavirus (HPV) – the same virus associated with both cervical and head and neck cancer – positive oropharyngeal cancer see significantly higher rates of complete response ...

Five genes to predict colorectal cancer relapses

4 hours ago

Researchers at the Catalan Institute of Oncology-Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (ICO-IDIBELL), led by David Garcia-Molleví have identified 5 genes differentially expressed in normal accompanying ...

User comments : 0