Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 45A)
Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 45A)
Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 45A)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
104 Screen<strong>in</strong>g for Colorectal Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> vol.45<br />
6 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CRC<br />
SCREENING: LITERATURE REVIEW<br />
6.1 INTRODUCTION<br />
The aim of this chapter was to conduct a detailed and critical appraisal of<br />
research evidence <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>ternational literature, analys<strong>in</strong>g the cost effectiveness<br />
of screen<strong>in</strong>g programs for colorectal cancer. We ma<strong>in</strong>ly focused on 2 types of<br />
screen<strong>in</strong>g tests: FOBT and colonoscopy, as recommended by the Scientific<br />
Steer<strong>in</strong>g Committee.<br />
As for the chapter on effectiveness, and after a first check of the literature we<br />
decided to take as a start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t the same exhaustive systematic review from<br />
the New Zealand Health Technology Assessment group (NZHTA), published <strong>in</strong><br />
2005 219, and cover<strong>in</strong>g the literature between January 1997 and October 2004.<br />
This review <strong>in</strong> itself was an update of a previous systematic review from<br />
1998 220. The NZHTA review considered all screen<strong>in</strong>g options available, but<br />
concentrated on fecal occult blood tests (FOBT), guaiac tests as well as<br />
immunochemical FOBT, and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS). For all other<br />
techniques, a lack of available RCTs <strong>with</strong> appropriate outcome variables was<br />
reported.<br />
In order to <strong>in</strong>clude more recent evidence we performed an <strong>in</strong>cremental search<br />
of the economic literature to cover the period s<strong>in</strong>ce October 2004. However,<br />
much of the evidence presented <strong>in</strong> this chapter will be similar to evidence<br />
already presented <strong>in</strong> the NZHTA systematic review.<br />
We conducted several searches of the literature on the cost-effectiveness of<br />
colorectal cancer screen<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Medl<strong>in</strong>e (OVID and Pubmed), Embase, the<br />
Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and CRD (Dare, NHS EED, HTA).<br />
Prelim<strong>in</strong>ary searches were done <strong>in</strong> June 2006 and searches were repeated on<br />
October 31 st, 2006 for completeness. Economic evaluations that came out of<br />
the general search on effectiveness (see chapter 5) were also <strong>in</strong>cluded. Details<br />
of the searches can be found <strong>in</strong> appendix. No language restrictions were applied<br />
and the searches were limited to the years 2004 till 2006.<br />
Overall, 341 different articles on economic evaluations were found <strong>in</strong> those<br />
searches, and those were obviously partly overlapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> articles from 2004<br />
already <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the NZHTA report. Based on title and abstract we selected<br />
14 new articles not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the NZHTA report. Full text articles were<br />
retrieved for these 14. Partial economic evaluations were excluded from our<br />
review. Full economic evaluations were def<strong>in</strong>ed accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Drummond<br />
criteria 488: study types <strong>in</strong>cluded were cost-m<strong>in</strong>imisation analyses, costeffectiveness<br />
analyses, cost-utility analyses and cost-benefit analyses. From the<br />
14 full text articles, 7 new studies were <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> this <strong>in</strong>cremental review.<br />
Together <strong>with</strong> the 15 primary studies <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the NZHTA report, this<br />
means that we considered 22 studies for this review.<br />
The economic evaluations were appraised <strong>in</strong> terms of their design, methods,<br />
data sources, key results, sensitivity of the model to value changes <strong>in</strong> variables,<br />
limitations and conclusions. Data were extracted us<strong>in</strong>g a structured data<br />
extraction form (also see tables <strong>in</strong> appendix).