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)
124 Screening for Colorectal Cancer KCE reports vol.45 example at age 55 rather than the commonly mentioned 50 years, would be more cost effective. In the presence of scarce resources, a sensible decision-making process taking into account economic considerations is necessary. The combination of a widening of the target population and increasing the periodicity of screening can have a large impact on budgets and necessary capacity in a country. A trade-off between health gains and costs, both considering acceptability and affordability, is therefore necessary. To be able to provide the best available trade-off, investigation of age, periodicity and the other influential factors in a pilot program is recommended before implementing a full national program. Key messages gFOBT All available economic evaluations show that annual or biennial gFOBT followed by colonoscopy for screen positive participants is a cost effective intervention. However, estimates for the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) range from approximately 2000 per Life Year Gained to 30.000 per Disability Adjusted Life Year in a young target population. ICERs for gFOBT are mainly sensitive for the frequency of screening (biennial testing has better ICERs than annual screening), sensitivity and specificity of the test (the less sensitive but more specific nonrehydrated test had better ICERs than the more sensitive rehydrated test), and for the cost of testing. Choosing the right target population for gFOBT mass screening has an important influence on the ICERs: best ICERs are obtained at ages between 55 and 74. Below and above these ages ICERs are less favourable. The ICERs are very dependent on participation and compliance if program costs are included in the economic evaluation. iFOBT There is no evidence for a better ICER from any of the studied iFOBT tests vs. gFOBT, when comparing screening strategies to no screening. Colonoscopy All economic evaluations of colonoscopy as a screening tool are based on overly optimistic and unrealistic assumptions (especially regarding compliance).
KCE reports vol.45 Screening for Colorectal Cancer 125 7 ORGANISATION OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES 7.1 INTRODUCTION In 2003 the European Commission recommended to use FOBT as a screening tool for colorectal cancer in men and women between 50 and 74 183. Following this recommendation different pilot programs were launched in several European member states in order to determine the best screening strategy and the feasibility of a national screening program. In some European countries, however, initiatives were already taken at the end of the nineties. Only a few countries have adopted colorectal cancer screening as a public health policy. In several countries such as Germany, the Czech Republic, France, and the UK, FOBT screening or screening by endoscopy as a population screening has been introduced on the regional level. Several countries have programs conform the EC recommendations; others have ignored these recommendations and offer colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy as a screening tool. Also outside Europe, national colorectal cancer screening guidelines gave birth to several initiatives. In this chapter, an overview of screening programs, pilot studies or public health programs in and outside Europe will be given. Recommendations and guidelines with regard to surveillance programs for high risk groups have been described in a previous chapter. As far as particular organised surveillance programs for high risk groups exist, they will be highlighted in this chapter. Information was collected from national and/or local governmental websites, and from private agencies when relevant. In order to validate or add to this information, contact was made with one or more experts in the specific country. Table 28 summarizes the available screening programs and pilots in different countries.
- Page 84 and 85: 74 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 86 and 87: 76 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 88 and 89: 78 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 90 and 91: 80 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 92 and 93: 82 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 94 and 95: 84 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 96 and 97: 86 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 98 and 99: 88 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 100 and 101: 90 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 102 and 103: 92 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 104 and 105: 94 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 106 and 107: 96 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 108 and 109: 98 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 110 and 111: 100 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 112 and 113: 102 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 114 and 115: 104 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 116 and 117: 106 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 118 and 119: 108 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 120 and 121: 110 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 122 and 123: 112 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 124 and 125: 114 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 126 and 127: 116 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 128 and 129: 118 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 130 and 131: 120 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 132 and 133: 122 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 136 and 137: 126 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 138 and 139: 128 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 140 and 141: 130 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 142 and 143: 132 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 144 and 145: 134 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 146 and 147: 136 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 148 and 149: 138 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 150 and 151: 140 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 152 and 153: 142 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 154 and 155: 144 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 156 and 157: 146 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 158 and 159: 148 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 160 and 161: 150 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 162 and 163: 152 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 164 and 165: 154 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 166 and 167: 156 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 168 and 169: 158 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 170 and 171: 160 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 172 and 173: 162 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 174 and 175: 164 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 176 and 177: 166 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 178 and 179: 168 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 180 and 181: 170 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 182 and 183: 172 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> vol.45 Screen<strong>in</strong>g for Colorectal Cancer 125<br />
7 ORGANISATION OF COLORECTAL CANCER<br />
SCREENING IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES<br />
7.1 INTRODUCTION<br />
In 2003 the European Commission recommended to use FOBT as a screen<strong>in</strong>g<br />
tool for colorectal cancer <strong>in</strong> men and women between 50 and 74 183. Follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
this recommendation different pilot programs were launched <strong>in</strong> several<br />
European member states <strong>in</strong> order to determ<strong>in</strong>e the best screen<strong>in</strong>g strategy and<br />
the feasibility of a national screen<strong>in</strong>g program. In some European countries,<br />
however, <strong>in</strong>itiatives were already taken at the end of the n<strong>in</strong>eties.<br />
Only a few countries have adopted colorectal cancer screen<strong>in</strong>g as a public<br />
health policy. In several countries such as Germany, the Czech Republic, France,<br />
and the UK, FOBT screen<strong>in</strong>g or screen<strong>in</strong>g by endoscopy as a population<br />
screen<strong>in</strong>g has been <strong>in</strong>troduced on the regional level. Several countries have<br />
programs conform the EC recommendations; others have ignored these<br />
recommendations and offer colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy as a screen<strong>in</strong>g tool.<br />
Also outside Europe, national colorectal cancer screen<strong>in</strong>g guidel<strong>in</strong>es gave birth<br />
to several <strong>in</strong>itiatives.<br />
In this chapter, an overview of screen<strong>in</strong>g programs, pilot studies or public health<br />
programs <strong>in</strong> and outside Europe will be given. Recommendations and guidel<strong>in</strong>es<br />
<strong>with</strong> regard to surveillance programs for high risk groups have been described<br />
<strong>in</strong> a previous chapter. As far as particular organised surveillance programs for<br />
high risk groups exist, they will be highlighted <strong>in</strong> this chapter. Information was<br />
collected from national and/or local governmental websites, and from private<br />
agencies when relevant. In order to validate or add to this <strong>in</strong>formation, contact<br />
was made <strong>with</strong> one or more experts <strong>in</strong> the specific country.<br />
Table 28 summarizes the available screen<strong>in</strong>g programs and pilots <strong>in</strong> different<br />
countries.