Economic Evaluation of Gastric Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY

Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1007/s12029-025-01202-2

Aziz Rezapour, Kamran Irandoust, Maryam Eri, Faeze Foruzanfar, Aghdas Souresrafil, Somayeh Afshari, Seidamir Pasha Tabaeian

{"title":"Economic Evaluation of Gastric Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Aziz Rezapour, Kamran Irandoust, Maryam Eri, Faeze Foruzanfar, Aghdas Souresrafil, Somayeh Afshari, Seidamir Pasha Tabaeian","doi":"10.1007/s12029-025-01202-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, with high mortality and economic burden. Early detection through cost-effective screening strategies can improve patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resource allocation. This systematic review evaluates the cost-effectiveness of various GC screening approaches.Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Google Scholar for studies published between 1990 and 2023. Relevant studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The CHEERS 2022 checklist was used to assess study quality.Results: A total of 6027 studies were retrieved, and after a two-phase screening and quality assessment, 47 studies were included. Most studies originated from China, Japan, the USA, Singapore, and South Korea. Findings indicate that screening is generally more cost-effective than no screening. Endoscopy was more cost-effective than upper gastrointestinal (UGI) X-ray but not superior to Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) screening, serum pepsinogen (PG) testing, or novel risk scoring methods. H. pylori screening was more cost-effective than endoscopy and symptomatic treatment but not superior to serum PG testing and risk scoring methods. Urea breath test (UBT)-based H. pylori screening was less cost-effective than most alternatives.Conclusions: Selecting cost-effective GC screening strategies can improve early detection rates and reduce healthcare costs. Policymakers should consider population-specific factors when implementing screening programs to maximize health benefits and economic efficiency.","PeriodicalId":15895,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer","volume":"56 1","pages":"85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-025-01202-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, with high mortality and economic burden. Early detection through cost-effective screening strategies can improve patient outcomes and optimize healthcare resource allocation. This systematic review evaluates the cost-effectiveness of various GC screening approaches.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Google Scholar for studies published between 1990 and 2023. Relevant studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The CHEERS 2022 checklist was used to assess study quality.

Results: A total of 6027 studies were retrieved, and after a two-phase screening and quality assessment, 47 studies were included. Most studies originated from China, Japan, the USA, Singapore, and South Korea. Findings indicate that screening is generally more cost-effective than no screening. Endoscopy was more cost-effective than upper gastrointestinal (UGI) X-ray but not superior to Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) screening, serum pepsinogen (PG) testing, or novel risk scoring methods. H. pylori screening was more cost-effective than endoscopy and symptomatic treatment but not superior to serum PG testing and risk scoring methods. Urea breath test (UBT)-based H. pylori screening was less cost-effective than most alternatives.

Conclusions: Selecting cost-effective GC screening strategies can improve early detection rates and reduce healthcare costs. Policymakers should consider population-specific factors when implementing screening programs to maximize health benefits and economic efficiency.

查看原文本刊更多论文

胃癌筛查策略的经济评价：系统综述。

背景：胃癌（胃癌）是世界上最常见的癌症之一，具有高死亡率和经济负担。通过具有成本效益的筛查策略进行早期检测可以改善患者预后并优化医疗资源分配。本系统综述评估了各种GC筛选方法的成本效益。方法：在Web of Science、Scopus、PubMed、Embase、NHS经济评估数据库和谷歌Scholar中全面检索1990年至2023年间发表的研究。根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准选择相关研究。使用CHEERS 2022检查表评估研究质量。结果：共检索到6027项研究，经过两阶段筛选和质量评估，纳入47项研究。大多数研究来自中国、日本、美国、新加坡和韩国。研究结果表明，筛查通常比不筛查更具成本效益。内镜检查比上消化道x线检查更具成本效益，但并不优于幽门螺杆菌（H. pylori）筛查、血清胃蛋白酶原（PG）检测或新的风险评分方法。幽门螺杆菌筛查比内窥镜检查和对症治疗更具成本效益，但并不优于血清PG检测和风险评分方法。尿素呼气试验（UBT）为基础的幽门螺杆菌筛查比大多数替代方法成本效益低。结论：选择具有成本效益的气相色谱筛查策略可提高早期检出率，降低医疗成本。决策者在实施筛查项目时应考虑到人群的具体因素，以最大限度地提高健康效益和经济效率。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer ONCOLOGY-

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

121

期刊介绍： The Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer is a multidisciplinary medium for the publication of novel research pertaining to cancers arising from the gastrointestinal tract.The journal is dedicated to the most rapid publication possible.The journal publishes papers in all relevant fields, emphasizing those studies that are helpful in understanding and treating cancers affecting the esophagus, stomach, liver, gallbladder and biliary tree, pancreas, small bowel, large bowel, rectum, and anus. In addition, the Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer publishes basic and translational scientific information from studies providing insight into the etiology and progression of cancers affecting these organs. New insights are provided from diverse areas of research such as studies exploring pre-neoplastic states, risk factors, epidemiology, genetics, preclinical therapeutics, surgery, radiation therapy, novel medical therapeutics, clinical trials, and outcome studies.In addition to reports of original clinical and experimental studies, the journal also publishes: case reports, state-of-the-art reviews on topics of immediate interest or importance; invited articles analyzing particular areas of pancreatic research and knowledge; perspectives in which critical evaluation and conflicting opinions about current topics may be expressed; meeting highlights that summarize important points presented at recent meetings; abstracts of symposia and conferences; book reviews; hypotheses; Letters to the Editors; and other items of special interest, including:Complex Cases in GI Oncology: This is a new initiative to provide a forum to review and discuss the history and management of complex and involved gastrointestinal oncology cases. The format will be similar to a teaching case conference where a case vignette is presented and is followed by a series of questions and discussion points. A brief reference list supporting the points made in discussion would be expected.