PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 4, 2025DEN Open2 citationsOpen Access

Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Immunochemical Test‐ and Colonoscopy‐based Colorectal Cancer Screening across Varying Uptake Rates

View Full Paper
MSMasau SekiguchiAIAtaru IgarashiMEMinoru Esaki

Key Points

  • Higher screening uptake enhances cost‐effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies,
  • Base-case analyses revealed ICERs below the 5,000,000 JPY threshold for effective strategies.
  • State-transition Markov model simulated cost‐effectiveness outcomes considering various uptake rates.
  • FIT-based screening remains superior at lower uptake levels, highlighting screening adherence's importance.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objectives To reduce the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC), identifying cost‐effective screening strategies with particular attention to screening adherence is essential. We aimed to assess the cost‐effectiveness of screening strategies using fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and/or total colonoscopy (TCS) through simulation model analyses using Japanese data, considering various uptake rates. Methods A state‐transition Markov model was used to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of FIT‐based, TCS‐based, and combined FIT‐ and TCS‐based screening strategies. Variable uptake rates for FIT (40%–80%), screening TCS (10%–80%), and TCS following a positive FIT (70%–90%) were assessed. Analyses were performed from the healthcare payer's perspective, evaluating direct medical costs and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs). Scenario analyses assuming substantially higher treatment costs for advanced CRC and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) for key parameters were also conducted. Results Base‐case analyses demonstrated that higher screening uptake improved cost‐effectiveness across all strategies, with incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the 5,000,000 JPY threshold. In FIT‐based screening, increased uptake of TCS following a positive FIT improved QALYs and reduced costs. TCS‐based screening became more cost‐effective than FIT‐based screening when screening uptake was high (≥60%), with ICERs below the threshold; at lower uptake levels, FIT‐based screening remained superior. The combined strategy also required high uptake of screening TCS to surpass FIT‐based screening in cost‐effectiveness. Scenario analyses and PSA confirmed similar trends. Discussion Our analyses highlight the critical impact of uptake rates on the cost‐effectiveness of CRC screening. Under currently realistic uptake conditions, FIT‐based screening remains the most cost‐effective strategy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sekiguchi et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/690945348f2297dc13532f7bhttps://doi.org/10.1002/deo2.70236
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Real-world treatment costs of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a survey of the JCOG colorectal cancer study group2024 · 6 citations
  2. 2The Advanced Adenoma as the Primary Target of Screening2002 · 366 citations
  3. 3Colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, tumour characteristics, and treatment before and after introduction of the faecal immunochemical testing-based screening programme in the Netherlands: a population-based study2021 · 107 citations
  4. 4Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening2012 · 562 citations
  5. 5Long-term effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test screening for proximal and distal colorectal cancers2021 · 106 citations