Search

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll‐out 2‐yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost‐effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1‐Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10‐yearly, or once‐off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51–67(74–80)% in comparison with no screening; 2‐yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2‐yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost‐effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness‐to‐pay threshold of A$50,000/life‐year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS–A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled‐out NBCSP is highly cost‐effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage II colon cancer. We therefore estimated adjuvant treatment effect in Stage II colon cancer using pooled disease-free survival (DFS) data from randomized clinical trials (RCT approach) and compared this to real-world data (RWD approach) estimates. First, we estimated the treatment effect in RCTs by (i) searching relevant trials reporting DFS data, (ii) generating patient-level data from reported DFS data and (iii) estimating treatment effect in the patient-level data. Second, the treatment effect was estimated in an observational cohort of 1,947 patients provided by the Netherlands Cancer Registry using three propensity score methods; matching, weighting and stratification. In the RCT approach, patient-level data of 4,489 patients (events: 853) were generated from seven trials which compared two of the following treatment arms: control, 5FU/LV or FOLFOX. A Cox model was used to estimate a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.77 (0.43;1.10) for 5FU/LV vs. control and 0.93 (0.72;1.15) for FOLFOX vs. 5FU/LV. In the RWD approach, HRs for any adjuvant treatment vs. control were 0.95 (0.50;1.80), 0.88 (0.24;3.21) and 1.05 (0.04;2.06) using matching, weighting and stratification, respectively. There was no significant difference with the estimates from the RCT approach (interaction test, p > 0.10). The RCT data suggest a clinically relevant benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of DFS, but the estimate did not reach statistical significance. Stratified analyses are required to evaluate whether treatment effect differs in specific subgroups., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HPV16/18 vaccination for girls aged 12 years in The Netherlands in addition to cervical cancer screening. For this purpose, we developed a simulation model that describes the relation between each of the high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) types and cervical disease, allowing the occurrence of multiple type-specific infections. Model parameters were derived from Dutch cohort studies, including a large population-based screening trial, and from the national cervical cancer registry. The model satisfactorily reproduced Dutch data on HPV infection and the presence of cervical lesions. For our base-case scenario in which 85% of the girls aged 12 years were vaccinated against types 16/18 (95% efficacy, lifelong protection), the model predicted a decrease of 60% in the number of cervical cancer cases and cervical cancer deaths indicating that substantial health benefits can be achieved. Health savings were robust against changes in the vaccine efficacy (varied from 85% to 98%) but savings showed a substantial reduction when the efficacy started waning 10 years after vaccination. The discounted costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were euro 19,500/QALY (range euro 11,000 to euro 25,000/QALY) and lied near the cost-effectiveness threshold of euro 20,000/QALY used in The Netherlands. The simulations further showed that vaccination cannot replace screening because vaccination without screening was less effective than screening in preventing cancer in women over 40 years of age. In conclusion, our model results support the implementation of HPV16/18 vaccination in young women in addition to cervical cancer screening.