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...
Saved in:
Published in | Medicine (Baltimore) Vol. 95; no. 10; p. e2739 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved
01.03.2016
Wolters Kluwer Health |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0025-7974 1536-5964 1536-5964 |
DOI | 10.1097/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 |