Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Cancer and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening with stool DNA testing in intermediate-incidence countries

Grace Hui-Min Wu12, Yi-Ming Wang2, Amy Ming-Fang Yen2, Jau-Min Wong3, Hsin-Chih Lai4, Jane Warwick5 and Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen26*

Author Affiliations

1 Graduate Institute of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

2 Institute of Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

3 Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

4 School of Medical Technology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

5 Cancer Research UK Department of Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, UK

6 Division of Biostatistics, Graduate Institute of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taiwan

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Cancer 2006, 6:136  doi:10.1186/1471-2407-6-136

Published: 24 May 2006

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of screening with stool DNA testing with that of screening with other tools (annual fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years) or not screening at all.

Methods

We developed a Markov model to evaluate the above screening strategies in the general population 50 to 75 years of age in Taiwan. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of various parameters on the cost-effectiveness of screening. A third-party payer perspective was adopted and the cost of $13,000 per life-year saved (which is roughly the per capita GNP of Taiwan in 2003) was chosen as the ceiling ratio for assessing whether the program is cost-effective.

Results

Stool DNA testing every three, five, and ten years can reduce colorectal cancer mortality by 22%, 15%, and 9%, respectively. The associated incremental costs were $9,794, $9,335, and $7,717, per life-year saved when compared with no screening. Stool DNA testing strategies were the least cost-effective with the cost per stool DNA test, referral rate with diagnostic colonoscopy, prevalence of large adenoma, and discount rate being the most influential parameters.

Conclusion

In countries with a low or intermediate incidence of colorectal cancer, stool DNA testing is less cost-effective than the other currently recommended strategies for population-based screening, particularly targeting at asymptomatic subjects.