scholarly journals AB041. Economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening programme in Hong Kong

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. AB041-AB041
Author(s):  
Matthew Shing Him Lee
2000 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Robert ◽  
J. Brown ◽  
L. Garvican

Objective To estimate the costs of a quality management (QM) system as proposed by the Quality Management for Screening report for a future national colorectal cancer screening programme. Methods Estimates of the costs of the QM system, including the associated costs of education and training and information provision, were based on expert opinion, the existing literature, and the experience of the current National Health Service (NHS) breast cancer screening programme (BSP) and the NHS cervical cancer screening programme (CSP). Results The cost of a QM system to support a national colorectal cancer programme in the UK was estimated as approximately £3.8 million a year. Further annual costs related to QM will include £500 000 for education and training and £200 000 for information provision. Adding these additional costs to a previously published UK economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening increases the cost-utility ratio to approximately £6500 per quality adjusted life year gained (over an eight year follow up period). Conclusions Any new screening programme, or an existing one, must have QM to ensure that the quality of screening is high and to maintain the right balance between benefit and harm. The significant costs of such a QM system should be included in any economic evaluation of a screening programme.


2010 ◽  
Vol 138 (5) ◽  
pp. S-192
Author(s):  
Stepan Suchanek ◽  
Miroslav Zavoral ◽  
Ondrej Majek ◽  
Ladislav Dusek ◽  
Premysl Fric

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominika Novak Mlakar ◽  
Tatjana Kofol Bric ◽  
Ana Lucija Škrjanec ◽  
Mateja Krajc

Abstract Background We assessed the incidence and characteristics of interval cancers after faecal immunochemical occult blood test and calculated the test sensitivity in Slovenian colorectal cancer screening programme. Patients and methods The analysis included the population aged between 50 to 69 years, which was invited for screening between April 2011 and December 2012. The persons were followed-up until the next foreseen invitation, in average for 2 years. The data on interval cancers and cancers in non-responders were obtained from cancer registry. Gender, age, years of schooling, the cancer site and stage were compared among three observed groups. We used the proportional incidence method to calculate the screening test sensitivity. Results Among 502,488 persons invited for screening, 493 cancers were detected after positive screening test, 79 interval cancers after negative faecal immunochemical test and 395 in non-responders. The proportion of interval cancers was 13.8%. Among the three observed groups cancers were more frequent in men (p = 0.009) and in persons aged 60+ years (p < 0.001). Comparing screen detected and cancers in non-responders with interval cancers more interval cancers were detected in persons with 10 years of schooling or more (p = 0.029 and p = 0.001), in stage III (p = 0.027) and IV (p < 0.001), and in right hemicolon (p < 0.001). Interval cancers were more frequently in stage I than non-responders cancers (p = 0.004). Test sensitivity of faecal immunochemical test was 88.45%. Conclusions Interval cancers in Slovenian screening programme were detected in expected proportions as in similar programmes. Test sensitivity was among the highest when compared to similar programmes and was accomplished using test kit for two stool samples.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. 90-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wessel van de Veerdonk ◽  
Guido Van Hal ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Isabel De Brabander ◽  
Geert Silversmit ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne Bosch ◽  
Laura W. Leicher ◽  
Nina C.A. Vermeer ◽  
Koen C.M.J. Peeters ◽  
Wouter H. Vos tot Nederveen Cappel ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 156 (6) ◽  
pp. S-46
Author(s):  
Susanne M. O’Reilly ◽  
Sara McNally ◽  
Therese Mooney ◽  
Patricia Fitzpatrick ◽  
Diarmuid O’Donoghue ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document