IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002630.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Family history–based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Dillon
  • Louisa Flander
  • Daniel D Buchanan
  • Finlay A Macrae
  • Jon D Emery
  • Ingrid M Winship
  • Alex Boussioutas
  • Graham G Giles
  • John L Hopper
  • Mark A Jenkins
  • Driss Ait Ouakrim

Abstract

Background: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) was introduced in 2006. When fully implemented, the programme will invite people aged 50 to 74 to complete an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years. Methods and findings: To investigate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening occurring outside of the NBCSP, we classified participants (n = 2,480) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) into 3 risk categories (average, moderately increased, and potentially high) based on CRC family history and assessed their screening practices according to national guidelines. We developed a microsimulation to compare hypothetical screening scenarios (70% and 100% uptake) to current participation levels (baseline) and evaluated clinical outcomes and cost for each risk category. The 2 main limitations of this study are as follows: first, the fact that our cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective, which does not include indirect costs and results in overestimated cost-effectiveness ratios, and second, that our natural history model of CRC does not include polyp sojourn time, which determines the rate of cancerous transformation. Conclusion: Investing in public health strategies to increase adherence to appropriate CRC screening will save lives and deliver high value for money. Driss Ait Ouakrim and colleagues present a microsimulation to compare hypothetical increased CRC screening scenarios to current participation levels in Australia, and evaluate clinical outcomes and costs for each risk category.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Dillon & Louisa Flander & Daniel D Buchanan & Finlay A Macrae & Jon D Emery & Ingrid M Winship & Alex Boussioutas & Graham G Giles & John L Hopper & Mark A Jenkins & Driss Ait Ouakrim, 2018. "Family history–based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002630
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002630
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002630&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002630?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002630. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.