Cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer in Guangzhou, southern China: a Markov simulation analysis based on natural community screening results.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different primary screening strategies: high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) alone, single immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT), double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening compared with no screening using the Markov model. METHODS: Treeage Pro V.2011 software was used to simulate the Markov model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was compared with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, was used to reflect the cost-effectiveness of the CRC screening method. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: All strategies had greater effectiveness because they had more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than no screening. When the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. The double iFOBT strategy was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies because it had the most QALYs and the least cost. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the sensitivity of low-risk adenoma, compliance with colonoscopy and primary screening cost were the main influencing factors comparing single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT with no screening. However, within the scope of this study, there was no fundamental impact on cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, the probabilities of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve with HRFQ alone, single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT were 0.0%, 5.3%, 69.3% and 25.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All screening strategies for CRC were cost-effective compared with no screening strategy. Double iFOBT was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies. The significant influencing factors were the sensitivity of low-risk polyps, compliance with colonoscopy and cost of primary screening.

Willingness to pay for colorectal cancer screening in Guangzhou.

AIM: To measure the willingness to pay for colorectal cancer screening in Guangzhou, and to identify those factors associated with it. METHODS: A face-to-face questionnaire survey for pre-screening population from free and non-free colonoscopy districts was used to collect information on demographic characteristics, health behaviours, the intention of the cancer screenings and willingness to pay for colorectal cancer screening. A total of 1243 participants who took part in the pre-screening for colorectal cancer in Guangzhou were collected in the study. Categorical data were compared using the χ2 test to analyse significant differences. Non-conditional logistic regression and multi-class logistic regression were also performed for multivariate analysis and to estimate the odds ratios. RESULTS: The percentage of participants willing to pay for colorectal cancer screening was 91.7%. "Unnecessary" was the dominant reason that participants gave for their unwillingness, accounting for 63.1%. Of those who were willing to pay, 29.2%, 20.7%, 14.8%, 13.0% and 22.4% of participants were willing to pay less than \100, \100-\199, \200-299, \300-\399 and more than \400, respectively. Non-logistic regression analysis showed that respondents who were male, had a high level of education, were from the family with more children/older to raise, and accepted colorectal cancer screening were willing to pay for this screening. Multi-class logistic regression analysis showed that respondents with higher annual household income per capita, from government and private enterprises, government agency/institution and peasants, and less family medical expenditure were willing to pay more. CONCLUSION: Willingness to pay for colorectal cancer screening in Guangzhou is high, but the amount of willing to pay is not much.