Cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer in Guangzhou, southern China: a Markov simulation analysis based on natural community screening results.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different primary screening strategies: high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) alone, single immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT), double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening compared with no screening using the Markov model.
Methods: Treeage Pro V.2011 software was used to simulate the Markov model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was compared with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, was used to reflect the cost-effectiveness of the CRC screening method. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used for parameter uncertainty.
Results: All strategies had greater effectiveness because they had more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than no screening. When the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. The double iFOBT strategy was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies because it had the most QALYs and the least cost. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the sensitivity of low-risk adenoma, compliance with colonoscopy and primary screening cost were the main influencing factors comparing single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT with no screening. However, within the scope of this study, there was no fundamental impact on cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, the probabilities of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve with HRFQ alone, single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT were 0.0%, 5.3%, 69.3% and 25.4%, respectively.
Conclusions: All screening strategies for CRC were cost-effective compared with no screening strategy. Double iFOBT was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies. The significant influencing factors were the sensitivity of low-risk polyps, compliance with colonoscopy and cost of primary screening.
Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.
(© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)