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)
154 Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Appendices KCE reports vol.45 clearly illustrated in the literature review in chapter 6, it did not seem appropriate to attempt to model the current situation. The incremental cost of HemeSelect and Hemoccult II Sensa is high due to the high price of the first relative to the Hemoccult II and due to the increased number of colonoscopies generated by both. With the implementation of a mass screening program with one of those tests the demand for these tests will increase dramatically. This would offer the government the possibility to negotiate with the industry about the price of the tests. Lower prices will lower the expected budget impact and hence the average cost per CRC detected. 8.2.3 Sensitivity analysis The confidence intervals around the estimated costs of the different implementation scenarios are large due to the uncertainty in a number of modelling parameters. The relative impact of the uncertainty in the different modelling parameters on the estimated total cost of the screening program is illustrated by means of an influence diagram in figure 15 for the baseline analysis applying a mailing system. The lengths of the bars represent the relative importance of the variable for the results. They result from the 1000 Monte Carlo simulations ran on our model for the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The by far most important uncertainty in all screening scenarios is participation. Uncertainty in the participation rate is the most decisive factor for the variability in the total cost estimate. In the mailing system also mailing costs, fixed campaign costs and compliance with colonoscopy after a positive FOBT influence the total cost estimate of mass screening for CRC. In the GP system the participation rate is the single most important uncertain factor in the model. participation rate mailing costs fixed campaign costs compliance with colonoscopy after positive FOBT 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 Correlation coefficient Figure 15: Influence diagram, representing the sensitivity of the total cost estimate in the first screening round to uncertain modelling parameters in the mailing system (age group 50-74 years)
KCE reports vol.45 Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Appendices 155 If we assume that our point estimate for participation is accurate, and fix this variable at the value of 45% in the GP system, where participation is the single most important uncertain factor, the most influential uncertain factors are (in order of importance): fixed campaign costs, mailing costs, compliance with colonoscopy after positive FOBT and positivity rate of FOBT in the first screening round. The uncertainty in the cost per CRC detected depends in first instance on the uncertainty in the detection rate of CRC after a positive FOBT in both the GP and mailing system. This was the most important factor in the GP system, whereas in the mailing system also the uncertainty around the participation rate, mailing costs, campaign costs and compliance with colonoscopy after positive FOBT added to the uncertainty in the cost per CRC detected (Figure 16). detection rate CRC participation rate mailing costs fixed campaign costs compliance w ith colonoscopy after positive FOBT Figure 16: Influence diagram representing the sensitivity of the estimated cost per CRC detected in the first screening round to uncertain modelling parameters in the mailing system (age group 50- 74 years) 8.3 CAPACITY NEEDS -0,8 -0,7 -0,6 -0,5 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 Correlation coefficients Implementing a mass screening program requires resources, not only in terms of money but also in terms of capacity. One of the major requirements is sufficient capacity to perform colonoscopies. From our baseline model with Hemoccult II, we concluded that 9890 colonoscopies per year would have to be performed in the first screening
- 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 134 and 135: 124 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 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
- Page 184 and 185: 174 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 186 and 187: 176 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 188 and 189: 178 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 190 and 191: 180 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 192 and 193: 182 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 194 and 195: 184 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 196 and 197: 186 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 198 and 199: 188 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 200 and 201: 190 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 202 and 203: 192 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 204 and 205: 194 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 206 and 207: 196 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 208 and 209: 198 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 210 and 211: 200 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
- Page 212 and 213: 202 Screening for Colorectal Cancer
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> vol.45 Screen<strong>in</strong>g for Colorectal Cancer: Appendices 155<br />
If we assume that our po<strong>in</strong>t estimate for participation is accurate, and fix this<br />
variable at the value of 45% <strong>in</strong> the GP system, where participation is the s<strong>in</strong>gle<br />
most important uncerta<strong>in</strong> factor, the most <strong>in</strong>fluential uncerta<strong>in</strong> factors are (<strong>in</strong><br />
order of importance): fixed campaign costs, mail<strong>in</strong>g costs, compliance <strong>with</strong><br />
colonoscopy after positive FOBT and positivity rate of FOBT <strong>in</strong> the first<br />
screen<strong>in</strong>g round.<br />
The uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>in</strong> the cost per CRC detected depends <strong>in</strong> first <strong>in</strong>stance on<br />
the uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>in</strong> the detection rate of CRC after a positive FOBT <strong>in</strong> both the<br />
GP and mail<strong>in</strong>g system. This was the most important factor <strong>in</strong> the GP system,<br />
whereas <strong>in</strong> the mail<strong>in</strong>g system also the uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty around the participation<br />
rate, mail<strong>in</strong>g costs, campaign costs and compliance <strong>with</strong> colonoscopy after<br />
positive FOBT added to the uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>in</strong> the cost per CRC detected (Figure<br />
16).<br />
detection rate CRC<br />
participation rate<br />
mail<strong>in</strong>g costs<br />
fixed campaign costs<br />
compliance w ith<br />
colonoscopy after positive<br />
FOBT<br />
Figure 16: Influence diagram represent<strong>in</strong>g the sensitivity of the<br />
estimated cost per CRC detected <strong>in</strong> the first screen<strong>in</strong>g round to<br />
uncerta<strong>in</strong> modell<strong>in</strong>g parameters <strong>in</strong> the mail<strong>in</strong>g system (age group 50-<br />
74 years)<br />
8.3 CAPACITY NEEDS<br />
-0,8 -0,7 -0,6 -0,5 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3<br />
Correlation coefficients<br />
Implement<strong>in</strong>g a mass screen<strong>in</strong>g program requires resources, not only <strong>in</strong> terms<br />
of money but also <strong>in</strong> terms of capacity. One of the major requirements is<br />
sufficient capacity to perform colonoscopies.<br />
From our basel<strong>in</strong>e model <strong>with</strong> Hemoccult II, we concluded that 9890<br />
colonoscopies per year would have to be performed <strong>in</strong> the first screen<strong>in</strong>g