Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Age and Gender: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inMedicine (Baltimore) Vol. 95; no. 10; p. e2739
Main Authors Wong, Martin C.S., Ching, Jessica Y.L., Chan, Victor C.W., Lam, Thomas Y.T., Luk, Arthur K.C., Wong, Sunny H., Ng, Siew C., Ng, Simon S.M., Wu, Justin C.Y., Chan, Francis K.L., Sung, Joseph J.Y.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved 01.03.2016
Wolters Kluwer Health
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0025-7974
1536-5964
1536-5964
DOI10.1097/MD.0000000000002739

Cover

Loading…
Abstract We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.
AbstractList Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective. Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed. Primary care screening practice (2008–2015). A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5. From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case. From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.
We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.
We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.
Author Sung, Joseph J.Y.
Lam, Thomas Y.T.
Chan, Victor C.W.
Wong, Martin C.S.
Luk, Arthur K.C.
Ng, Siew C.
Wu, Justin C.Y.
Ching, Jessica Y.L.
Wong, Sunny H.
Ng, Simon S.M.
Chan, Francis K.L.
AuthorAffiliation From the Institute of Digestive Disease, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China (MCSW, JYLC, VCWC, TYTL, AKCL, SHW, SCN, SSN, JCYW, FKLC, JJYS), and School of Public Health and Primary Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China (MCSW)
AuthorAffiliation_xml – name: From the Institute of Digestive Disease, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China (MCSW, JYLC, VCWC, TYTL, AKCL, SHW, SCN, SSN, JCYW, FKLC, JJYS), and School of Public Health and Primary Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China (MCSW)
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Martin
  surname: Wong
  middlename: C.S.
  fullname: Wong, Martin C.S.
  organization: From the Institute of Digestive Disease, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China (MCSW, JYLC, VCWC, TYTL, AKCL, SHW, SCN, SSN, JCYW, FKLC, JJYS), and School of Public Health and Primary Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China (MCSW)
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Jessica
  surname: Ching
  middlename: Y.L.
  fullname: Ching, Jessica Y.L.
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Victor
  surname: Chan
  middlename: C.W.
  fullname: Chan, Victor C.W.
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Thomas
  surname: Lam
  middlename: Y.T.
  fullname: Lam, Thomas Y.T.
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Arthur
  surname: Luk
  middlename: K.C.
  fullname: Luk, Arthur K.C.
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Sunny
  surname: Wong
  middlename: H.
  fullname: Wong, Sunny H.
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Siew
  surname: Ng
  middlename: C.
  fullname: Ng, Siew C.
– sequence: 8
  givenname: Simon
  surname: Ng
  middlename: S.M.
  fullname: Ng, Simon S.M.
– sequence: 9
  givenname: Justin
  surname: Wu
  middlename: C.Y.
  fullname: Wu, Justin C.Y.
– sequence: 10
  givenname: Francis
  surname: Chan
  middlename: K.L.
  fullname: Chan, Francis K.L.
– sequence: 11
  givenname: Joseph
  surname: Sung
  middlename: J.Y.
  fullname: Sung, Joseph J.Y.
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26962772$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp9kU9vEzEQxS1URNPCJ0BCPnLZMvbaa5sDUkhLQWqFxJ-z5XhnE4NjF3vTqt-eDWlR6YG5jDR-v_esmSNykHJCQl4yOGFg1JvL0xN4UFy15gmZMdl2jTSdOCCzaSgbZZQ4JEe1_gBgreLiGTnknem4UnxGvixyzAX96CJduOSx0K--IKaQVvS9q9jTnOh8hdSlnp5j6rG8pXO6yHVszoZhIsM1JqyVzpOLtzXU5-Tp4GLFF3f9mHz_cPZt8bG5-Hz-aTG_aLwAaRqBSw9C6EGDHuSyB9MZgdO_ADTTS6V66UFzr4VjqpMOem0cG6RQptNgZHtM3u19r7bLDfYe01hctFclbFy5tdkF--9LCmu7ytdWGKO1bCeD13cGJf_aYh3tJlSPMbqEeVstmzakW86lmaSvHmb9Dblf5CQwe4EvudaCg_VhdGPIu-gQLQO7O5q9PLWPjzax7SP23v7_lNhTNzmOWOrPuL3BYtfo4rj-I5fK8IYD66AFDc1uZNrf_ySmtQ
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1093_jamia_ocaa022
crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers15030633
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cgh_2019_01_014
crossref_primary_10_1097_MD_0000000000008269
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jval_2025_01_007
crossref_primary_10_3310_hta24660
crossref_primary_10_3389_fphar_2017_00267
crossref_primary_10_4103_NJGH_NJGH_15_20
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biopha_2017_11_018
crossref_primary_10_3892_mmr_2018_8397
crossref_primary_10_2147_RMHP_S262171
crossref_primary_10_3389_fgene_2024_1410353
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0227251
crossref_primary_10_1111_1751_2980_13027
crossref_primary_10_1177_2050312117727999
crossref_primary_10_1002_ijc_33784
crossref_primary_10_1097_01_NPR_0000524663_78727_4e
crossref_primary_10_1111_jgh_15033
crossref_primary_10_3390_biomedicines5040058
Cites_doi 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.052
10.1001/jama.284.15.1954
10.1093/jnci/djr284
10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308002
10.1056/NEJMoa1301969
10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07059.x
10.1093/epirev/mxr004
10.3322/CA.2007.0018
10.1038/ajg.2012.380
10.7326/0003-4819-139-12-200312160-00005
10.1023/A:1008353227103
10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15947-3
10.1038/srep13568
10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.051
10.1002/ijc.23273
10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305639
10.1053/gast.2003.50090
10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60551-X
10.1056/NEJM199312303292701
10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275
10.1080/00365520252903125
10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306503
10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00355.x
10.1634/theoncologist.12-7-825
10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.008
10.1038/bjc.2011.580
10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70422-8
10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.006
10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.05.026
10.1186/1471-2407-6-136
10.1016/j.cgh.2015.02.021
10.1111/j.0269-2813.2008.03726.x
10.7326/0003-4819-133-8-200010170-00007
10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.031
10.1186/1471-2407-14-261
10.1002/ijc.29809
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. 2016
Copyright_xml – notice: The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
– notice: Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. 2016
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
5PM
DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000002739
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList
MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1536-5964
EndPage e2739
ExternalDocumentID PMC4998853
26962772
10_1097_MD_0000000000002739
00005792-201603080-00009
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
GeographicLocations United States
GeographicLocations_xml – name: United States
GroupedDBID ---
.-D
.XZ
.Z2
01R
0R~
354
40H
4Q1
4Q2
4Q3
5GY
5RE
5VS
71W
77Y
7O~
AAAAV
AAGIX
AAHPQ
AAIQE
AAMOA
AAQKA
AARTV
AASCR
AAWTL
AAXQO
AAYEP
ABASU
ABBUW
ABCQX
ABDIG
ABFRF
ABOCM
ABVCZ
ABXVJ
ABZAD
ABZZY
ACDDN
ACEWG
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACILI
ACLDA
ACWDW
ACWRI
ACXJB
ACXNZ
ACZKN
ADGGA
ADHPY
ADNKB
ADPDF
AE6
AEFWE
AENEX
AFBFQ
AFDTB
AGOPY
AHOMT
AHQNM
AHVBC
AIJEX
AINUH
AJCLO
AJIOK
AJNWD
AJNYG
AJZMW
AKCTQ
AKULP
ALKUP
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALMTX
AMJPA
AMKUR
AMNEI
AOHHW
AOQMC
BQLVK
CS3
DIWNM
DU5
E.X
EBS
EEVPB
EJD
ERAAH
EX3
F2K
F2L
F2M
F2N
F5P
FCALG
FD6
FIJ
FL-
GNXGY
GQDEL
GROUPED_DOAJ
H0~
HLJTE
HYE
HZ~
H~9
IKREB
IKYAY
IN~
IPNFZ
JK3
JK8
K8S
KD2
KMI
KQ8
L-C
N9A
N~7
N~B
O9-
OAG
OAH
OB2
OHH
OK1
OL1
OLB
OLG
OLH
OLU
OLV
OLY
OLZ
OPUJH
OUVQU
OVD
OVDNE
OVEED
OVIDH
OVLEI
OWV
OWW
OWZ
OXXIT
P2P
RIG
RLZ
RPM
RXW
S4R
S4S
TAF
TEORI
TSPGW
UNMZH
V2I
VVN
W3M
WOQ
WOW
X3V
X3W
XYM
YFH
YOC
ZFV
ZY1
.3C
.55
.GJ
1CY
53G
AAYXX
ADFPA
ADGHP
AE3
AFFNX
AFUWQ
AHRYX
BS7
BYPQX
CITATION
FW0
JF9
JG8
N4W
N~M
OCUKA
ODA
ORVUJ
OWU
P-K
R58
T8P
X7M
XXN
ZGI
ZXP
ACIJW
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
ADSXY
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c4059-4ebc0448f808f5bd09694e96200818b77d5c082c84a1765a0d89a1f5479680953
ISSN 0025-7974
1536-5964
IngestDate Thu Aug 21 18:17:00 EDT 2025
Thu Sep 04 19:37:38 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 03 07:02:21 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 01:21:25 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 23:07:26 EDT 2025
Fri May 16 03:51:13 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 10
Language English
License This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives License 4.0, which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4059-4ebc0448f808f5bd09694e96200818b77d5c082c84a1765a0d89a1f5479680953
Notes ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Undefined-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
OpenAccessLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002739
PMID 26962772
PQID 1772832259
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4998853
proquest_miscellaneous_1772832259
pubmed_primary_26962772
crossref_citationtrail_10_1097_MD_0000000000002739
crossref_primary_10_1097_MD_0000000000002739
wolterskluwer_health_00005792-201603080-00009
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2016-March-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2016-03-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 03
  year: 2016
  text: 2016-March-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle Medicine (Baltimore)
PublicationTitleAlternate Medicine (Baltimore)
PublicationYear 2016
Publisher The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved
Wolters Kluwer Health
Publisher_xml – name: The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved
– name: Wolters Kluwer Health
References Wong (R20-9-20210226) 2015; 81
Lansdorp-Vogelaar (R43-9-20210226) 2011; 33
Levin (R4-9-20210226) 2008; 58
Segnan (R12-9-20210226) 2011; 103
Imperiale (R15-9-20210226) 2012; 125
Kemeny (R28-9-20210226) 2007; 12
McGrath (R37-9-20210226) 2002; 97
Benson (R6-9-20210226) 2008; 122
Sharaf (R40-9-20210226) 2012; 108
Sharp (R39-9-20210226) 2012; 106
Wong (R44-9-20210226) 2015; 13
Seeff (R8-9-20210226) 2004; 127
Wu (R22-9-20210226) 2006; 6
Wong (R19-9-20210226) 2015; 64
Sung (R2-9-20210226) 2005; 6
Wong (R21-9-20210226) 2014; 63
Sung (R23-9-20210226) 2003; 124
Allameh (R38-9-20210226) 2011; 14
Leung (R31-9-20210226) 2004; 363
Sung (R5-9-20210226) 2015; 64
Imperiale (R14-9-20210226) 2003; 139
Wong (R18-9-20210226) 2015; 138
Seeff (R9-9-20210226) 2004; 127
Atkin (R11-9-20210226) 2010; 375
Frazier (R42-9-20210226) 2000; 284
Winawer (R27-9-20210226) 1993; 329
Klabunde (R7-9-20210226) 2009; 37
Wong (R17-9-20210226) 2015; 5
Nishihara (R3-9-20210226) 2013; 369
Tsoi (R16-9-20210226) 2008; 28
Soon (R24-9-20210226) 2005; 100
Ouakrim (R41-9-20210226) 2014; 14
Li (R36-9-20210226) 2003; 116
Sonnenberg (R26-9-20210226) 2000; 133
Hou (R34-9-20210226) 2004; 38
Borner (R29-9-20210226) 1999; 10
Bretthauer (R13-9-20210226) 2002; 37
Drummond (R32-9-20210226) 1996; 313
Yang (R35-9-20210226) 2006; 13
References_xml – volume: 127
  start-page: 1661
  year: 2004
  ident: R8-9-20210226
  article-title: Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?
  publication-title: Gastroenterology
  doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.052
– volume: 284
  start-page: 1954
  year: 2000
  ident: R42-9-20210226
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population
  publication-title: JAMA
  doi: 10.1001/jama.284.15.1954
– volume: 103
  start-page: 1310
  year: 2011
  ident: R12-9-20210226
  article-title: Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial—SCORE
  publication-title: J Natl Cancer Inst
  doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr284
– volume: 64
  start-page: 776
  year: 2015
  ident: R19-9-20210226
  article-title: Prediction of proximal advanced neoplasia: a comparison of four existing sigmoidoscopy-based strategies in a Chinese population
  publication-title: Gut
  doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308002
– volume: 13
  start-page: S8
  year: 2006
  ident: R35-9-20210226
  article-title: Colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood test within a multiple disease screening programme: an experience from Keelung, Taiwan
  publication-title: J Med Screen
– volume: 369
  start-page: 1095
  year: 2013
  ident: R3-9-20210226
  article-title: Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy
  publication-title: N Engl J Med
  doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969
– volume: 97
  start-page: 2902
  year: 2002
  ident: R37-9-20210226
  article-title: Screening for colorectal cancer: the cost to find an advanced adenoma
  publication-title: Am J Gastroenterol
  doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07059.x
– volume: 33
  start-page: 88
  year: 2011
  ident: R43-9-20210226
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening
  publication-title: Epidemiol Rev
  doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxr004
– volume: 58
  start-page: 130
  year: 2008
  ident: R4-9-20210226
  article-title: Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology
  publication-title: CA Cancer J Clin
  doi: 10.3322/CA.2007.0018
– volume: 108
  start-page: 120
  year: 2012
  ident: R40-9-20210226
  article-title: Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies
  publication-title: Am J Gastroenterol
  doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.380
– volume: 139
  start-page: 959
  year: 2003
  ident: R14-9-20210226
  article-title: Using risk for advanced proximal colonic neoplasia to tailor endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer
  publication-title: Ann Intern Med
  doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-139-12-200312160-00005
– volume: 10
  start-page: 623
  year: 1999
  ident: R29-9-20210226
  article-title: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable liver metastases of colorectal cancer—too good to be true?
  publication-title: Ann Oncol
  doi: 10.1023/A:1008353227103
– volume: 363
  start-page: 1187
  year: 2004
  ident: R31-9-20210226
  article-title: Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial
  publication-title: Lancet
  doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15947-3
– volume: 5
  start-page: 13568
  year: 2015
  ident: R17-9-20210226
  article-title: The comparative cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical test vs. colonoscopy
  publication-title: Sci Rep
  doi: 10.1038/srep13568
– volume: 127
  start-page: 1670
  year: 2004
  ident: R9-9-20210226
  article-title: How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity
  publication-title: Gastroenterology
  doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.051
– volume: 122
  start-page: 1357
  year: 2008
  ident: R6-9-20210226
  article-title: Colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of 35 initiatives in 17 countries
  publication-title: Int J Cancer
  doi: 10.1002/ijc.23273
– volume: 63
  start-page: 1130
  year: 2014
  ident: R21-9-20210226
  article-title: A validated tool to predict colorectal neoplasia and inform screening choice for asymptomatic subjects
  publication-title: Gut
  doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305639
– volume: 124
  start-page: 608
  year: 2003
  ident: R23-9-20210226
  article-title: Screening for colorectal neoplasms in Chinese: fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy?
  publication-title: Gastroenterology
  doi: 10.1053/gast.2003.50090
– volume: 375
  start-page: 1624
  year: 2010
  ident: R11-9-20210226
  article-title: Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial
  publication-title: Lancet
  doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60551-X
– volume: 329
  start-page: 1977
  year: 1993
  ident: R27-9-20210226
  article-title: Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy
  publication-title: New Engl J Med
  doi: 10.1056/NEJM199312303292701
– volume: 313
  start-page: 275
  year: 1996
  ident: R32-9-20210226
  article-title: Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party
  publication-title: BMJ
  doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275
– volume: 37
  start-page: 568
  year: 2002
  ident: R13-9-20210226
  article-title: Design, organization and management of a controlled population screening study for detection of colorectal neoplasia attendance rates in the NORCCAP Study (Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention)
  publication-title: Scand J Gastroenterol
  doi: 10.1080/00365520252903125
– volume: 64
  start-page: 121
  year: 2015
  ident: R5-9-20210226
  article-title: An updated Asia Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening
  publication-title: Gut
  doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306503
– volume: 100
  start-page: 2749
  year: 2005
  ident: R24-9-20210226
  article-title: Screening colonoscopy in Chinese and Western patients: a comparative study
  publication-title: Am J Gastroenterol
  doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00355.x
– volume: 12
  start-page: 825
  year: 2007
  ident: R28-9-20210226
  article-title: Presurgical chemotherapy in patients being considered for liver resection
  publication-title: Oncologist
  doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-7-825
– volume: 14
  start-page: 110
  year: 2011
  ident: R38-9-20210226
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening methods in Iran
  publication-title: Arch Iran Med
– volume: 37
  start-page: 8
  year: 2009
  ident: R7-9-20210226
  article-title: Colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians: recommendations and practices, 2006–2007
  publication-title: Am J Prev Med
  doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.008
– volume: 106
  start-page: 805
  year: 2012
  ident: R39-9-20210226
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing, faecal immunochemical testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy
  publication-title: Br J Cancer
  doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.580
– volume: 6
  start-page: 871
  year: 2005
  ident: R2-9-20210226
  article-title: Increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in Asia: implications for screening
  publication-title: Lancet Oncol
  doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70422-8
– volume: 81
  start-page: 596
  year: 2015
  ident: R20-9-20210226
  article-title: Factors associated with false positive and false negative faecal immunochemical test results for colorectal cancer screening
  publication-title: Gastrointest Endosc
  doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.006
– volume: 116
  start-page: 200
  year: 2003
  ident: R36-9-20210226
  article-title: Colorectal cancer screening for the natural population of Beijing with sequential fecal occult blood test: a multicenter study
  publication-title: Chin Med J (Engl
– volume: 125
  start-page: 1181
  year: 2012
  ident: R15-9-20210226
  article-title: Tailoring colorectal cancer screening by considering risk of advanced proximal neoplasia
  publication-title: Am J Med
  doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.05.026
– volume: 6
  start-page: 136
  year: 2006
  ident: R22-9-20210226
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness analysis of CRC screening with stool DNA testing in intermediate-incidence countries
  publication-title: BMC Cancer
  doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-6-136
– volume: 13
  start-page: 1472
  year: 2015
  ident: R44-9-20210226
  article-title: Diagnostic accuracy of a qualitative fecal immunochemical test varies with location of neoplasia but not number of specimens
  publication-title: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
  doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.02.021
– volume: 28
  start-page: 353
  year: 2008
  ident: R16-9-20210226
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness analysis on screening for colorectal neoplasm and management of colorectal cancer in Asia
  publication-title: Aliment Pharmacol Ther
  doi: 10.1111/j.0269-2813.2008.03726.x
– volume: 133
  start-page: 573
  year: 2000
  ident: R26-9-20210226
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer
  publication-title: Ann Intern Med
  doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-133-8-200010170-00007
– volume: 38
  start-page: 78
  year: 2004
  ident: R34-9-20210226
  article-title: Home-administered fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening among worksites in Taiwan
  publication-title: Prev Med
  doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.031
– volume: 14
  start-page: 261
  year: 2014
  ident: R41-9-20210226
  article-title: Cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia
  publication-title: BMC Cancer
  doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-261
– volume: 138
  start-page: 576
  year: 2015
  ident: R18-9-20210226
  article-title: Screening strategies for colorectal cancer among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and family history
  publication-title: Int J Cancer
  doi: 10.1002/ijc.29809
SSID ssj0013724
Score 2.2907019
Snippet We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2...
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective. Recent studies...
SourceID pubmedcentral
proquest
pubmed
crossref
wolterskluwer
SourceType Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
Publisher
StartPage e2739
SubjectTerms Age Factors
Aged
Colonoscopy - methods
Colonoscopy - statistics & numerical data
Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis
Colorectal Neoplasms - economics
Colorectal Neoplasms - epidemiology
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Early Detection of Cancer - economics
Early Detection of Cancer - methods
Economic Evaluation Study
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Patient Selection
Sex Factors
Sigmoidoscopy - methods
Sigmoidoscopy - statistics & numerical data
United States - epidemiology
Title Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Age and Gender: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
URI https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&NEWS=n&CSC=Y&PAGE=fulltext&D=ovft&AN=00005792-201603080-00009
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26962772
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1772832259
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC4998853
Volume 95
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3rb9MwELdKJyEkhHhTHlOQ-FYckixO4o9bWzRNCyDRjfEpivOAipFUWysk_nrufHGSbhWC9UNUJc7Lv8v5znf-HWNvAilL5amSK4Wk2uAGcemlLlc-slvtwZCt18LEH4LDE__oTJwNBste1tJ6pezs99Z1JTdBFfYBrrhK9j-QbS8KO-A_4AtbQBi2_4QxeP01aiycAED0LuBTxTwadP8PYHjKMRSw_40iBFQ0rm-Mxk1cHa3Mg_R8taCk23ZqwKTrEtXAeGJ_trtsgKYWyhGm0Wbp-Kt93DtIs6qnC4wIwHlf2kPHJH-UlgQnze3-tIMbdHlXpNxqDOZfjptkfloz1Ve0WCVXUgEeuzC6NeBCEmm5Ub5UYdMImbNVqRNZcDwlrsnmB2aX7LcGZJY_Nc5egAWFqCDQFS7tT_EEPLwITJRbbAfbOEO28_F0Npt2kafQ89syv_AChqlKhu-2PAFySTe32zRsrnkr15Nu7_6iPvyhu7Bn1czvs3uNO2Ltk2w9YIOieshuG8F4xPY6EbNIxKxWxCwtYlZdWSBiFoiYRSL2mJ28n80nh7yps8EzMNcl9wuVOeCml5ETlULl4NVKv4C30nyHKgxzkYGlmEV-6oaBSJ08kqlbCj-UQYR8hU_YsKqr4hmzVCjcTClfE08qkUsvKFJHiTSPRFBkcsQ800lJ1pDQYy2U88QkQ8TT5Gonj9jb9qQlcbD8vflr0_sJ6EoMgKVVUa8vExdg0iMYtHlKaLQXNDCOWLiBU9sAedg3j1SL75qPvRGpEeMbiCa0klk_nwilxz1d0x1cNK49s-c3vtMLdqf7JF-y4epiXbwC23ildvWc0m4j1H8AH6Otkg
linkProvider Ovid
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV3db9MwELegkwBpQnxTPo2E8oShMbEdI_UhpBllLAXRDsZTFCcOTJuSae3g3-fOSQplAom8JFIuebAvd7_L3f2OkKdS68pwUzFjkFQbwiCmee4zEyC71Utw2a4XJp3J6X6weyAOumoL7IXB7rPlyXM8OTuNFzgPBwPDxXh37s2Sz_Nx7cXzePzF-xC9Sdx_aqyS8Cbj5nu18qKZq78SSnPQARyjDKiIOTB0kWxJ5DcZkK33n5Jk8ivfoHiwHu4KELvnJ9LqRTppOQ67A9y93vRh54Dp-frK7R8N5r6XR670_TcHtnONXO2QJ41aVblOLtj6BrmUdrn1m-RjDHYQ7R8IxagLp3ReYFUOODf6GpxdSZuaRl8tzeuStiPoXtGIxs1yxVoS5M5y0p7p5BbZ30kW8ZR1ExdYAcBNs8CaYgQBWxWOwkqYEuIbHVgtuWO-M0qVogDMUIRB7isp8lEZ6tyvRKC0DJG57jYZ1E1t7xJqlPALYwJHQWhEqbm0-ciIvAyFtIUeEt6vYVZ0dOQ4FeM469Pi6ST7c-GH5Nn6oZOWjePf4k_6zcngq8FUSF7b5myZ-RBUOFsGMnfazVq_kEscSKT4kKiNbVwLICP35p368Jtj5obwMQT8MyRsY8Oztqc1-5ta3vtP-cfk8nSR7mV7b2fv7pMreLcti3tABqvTM_sQcNLKPOqU_CcRTQME
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV3db5RAEJ_Ua9KYmMZvr_VjTQxPrjlWFtgmPJzAWat3bbxW6xNhYVGjgaZ31fjfO7PA6VljIi-Q7EDIzjLzG2b2NwBPfKUqLXTFtSZSbQyDuBK5y7VH7FbP0WXbvTDTmb9_4h2cytMN6DOmtPlscfaMTtZM0wW1w6G48Dg6mDvxPI4-OLP0_TyaOUfjl6n9TU1FEs5RMol-OEnUfKuWTnIY9fyM06QlKewO9NfqCmyG1HxpAJuH79I0-ZV3CIS3avKKULvnKfr7Y9Z92SWAernO8tr3hnLgiy-2BP43Rza5DtsdAmXjdsncgA1T34StaZdjvwVvY7SHZAdRKKY1cc7mBVXnoJNjL9Dplayp2fijYXldsrYV3R4bs7hZLHlLhtxZUNYzntyGk0l6HO_zrvMCLxDAKe4ZXYwwcKvCUVhJXWKcozyjfGEZ8HQQlLJA7FCEXu4GvsxHZahyt5JeoPyQGOzuwKBuanMPmA6kW2jtWSpCLUslfJOPtMzLUPqmUEMQ_RxmRUdLTt0xvmZ9enyaZH9O_BCerm46a1k5_i3-uFdOhl8PpUTy2jQXi8zF4MLaNJS52ypr9UDhU2OiQAwhWFPjSoCYuddH6s-fLEM3hpEh4qAh8DWFZ-3eVvt-MlACTRR1-UbQzi1W3_lP-UewhYs-e_Nq9noXrtJgWx13HwbL8wvzAOHSUj_s1vhP8xsEiQ
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Colorectal+Cancer+Screening+Based+on+Age+and+Gender&rft.jtitle=Medicine+%28Baltimore%29&rft.au=Wong%2C+Martin+C.S.&rft.au=Ching%2C+Jessica+Y.L.&rft.au=Chan%2C+Victor+C.W.&rft.au=Lam%2C+Thomas+Y.T.&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.pub=Wolters+Kluwer+Health&rft.issn=0025-7974&rft.eissn=1536-5964&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=10&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097%2FMD.0000000000002739&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F26962772&rft.externalDocID=PMC4998853
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0025-7974&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0025-7974&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0025-7974&client=summon