Elifnur Yay Donderici, Shaun P Forbes, Nicole J Zhang, Gregory Schafer, Victoria M Raymond, Amar K Das, Craig Eagle, AmirAli Talasaz, William M Grady
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of blood-based colorectal cancer screening - a simulation model incorporating real-world longitudinal adherence.","authors":"Elifnur Yay Donderici, Shaun P Forbes, Nicole J Zhang, Gregory Schafer, Victoria M Raymond, Amar K Das, Craig Eagle, AmirAli Talasaz, William M Grady","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2458044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Although U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended CRC screenings are effective; patient reluctance reduces adherence. Most cost-effectiveness models assume perfect adherence, yet one-third of eligible individuals aren't current with CRC screening. Our study assesses the cost-effectiveness of Shield, an FDA-approved blood-based CRC screening test, using real-world adherence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The CAN-SCREEN (Colorectal cANcer SCReening Economics and adherENce) model, a validated discrete-event simulation, evaluated clinical and economic outcomes of CRC screening under real-world adherence scenarios. We compared the Shield blood-based test administered every 3 years to no screening, considering it cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was under $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Shield increased QALYs by 154 and raised costs by $7.5 million per 1,000 individuals, with an ICER of $48,662 per QALY, meeting the $100,000/QALY threshold. Shield remained cost-effective up to a unit cost of $3,241 (at $100,000/QALY) and $4,942 (at $150,000/QALY). Sensitivity analyses confirmed cost-effectiveness with lower adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy (56.1%) and annual screenings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CAN-SCREEN model shows that Shield is cost-effective compared to no screening. Including real-world adherence improves accuracy in assessing screening strategies. Shield's noninvasive approach offers a promising, cost-effective way to increase adherence and reduce CRC mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2458044","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Although U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended CRC screenings are effective; patient reluctance reduces adherence. Most cost-effectiveness models assume perfect adherence, yet one-third of eligible individuals aren't current with CRC screening. Our study assesses the cost-effectiveness of Shield, an FDA-approved blood-based CRC screening test, using real-world adherence.
Methods: The CAN-SCREEN (Colorectal cANcer SCReening Economics and adherENce) model, a validated discrete-event simulation, evaluated clinical and economic outcomes of CRC screening under real-world adherence scenarios. We compared the Shield blood-based test administered every 3 years to no screening, considering it cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was under $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Results: Shield increased QALYs by 154 and raised costs by $7.5 million per 1,000 individuals, with an ICER of $48,662 per QALY, meeting the $100,000/QALY threshold. Shield remained cost-effective up to a unit cost of $3,241 (at $100,000/QALY) and $4,942 (at $150,000/QALY). Sensitivity analyses confirmed cost-effectiveness with lower adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy (56.1%) and annual screenings.
Conclusion: The CAN-SCREEN model shows that Shield is cost-effective compared to no screening. Including real-world adherence improves accuracy in assessing screening strategies. Shield's noninvasive approach offers a promising, cost-effective way to increase adherence and reduce CRC mortality.
期刊介绍：
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
