在以人群为基础的结直肠癌筛查项目中,人工智能辅助结肠镜检查作为主要或次要筛查试验的成本效益:基于马尔可夫模型的成本效益分析

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Martin Cs Wong, Junjie Huang, Thomas Yt Lam, Louis Hs Lau, Philip Wy Chiu
{"title":"在以人群为基础的结直肠癌筛查项目中,人工智能辅助结肠镜检查作为主要或次要筛查试验的成本效益:基于马尔可夫模型的成本效益分析","authors":"Martin Cs Wong, Junjie Huang, Thomas Yt Lam, Louis Hs Lau, Philip Wy Chiu","doi":"10.2196/67762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and poses a heavy burden on health care systems. Early screening for CRC through colonoscopy can effectively reduce both the incidence and mortality associated with CRC. However, the sensitivity of conventional colonoscopy is limited by the level of experience of physicians. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy has been shown to have higher sensitivity in detecting CRC and mitigating the limitations concerning physician experience, but few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted colonoscopy in CRC screening.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various CRC screening strategies, including no screening, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) positive result followed by a conventional colonoscopy, FIT positive result followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy, direct colonoscopy, and direct AI-assisted colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study modeled a hypothetical population based on current clinical practice in Asia, where CRC screening typically begins at the age of 50 years. The cost-effectiveness of various population-based CRC screening strategies, including AI-assisted colonoscopy, was evaluated by comparing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and outcome measures such as cancer-related life years lost, number of CRC cases prevented, life years saved, and total cost per life year saved. Data from the international literature and the government gazette were accessed to calculate relevant cost and performance estimates. The data were entered into a decision analysis algorithm based on a Markov model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to no screening strategy, the ICERs of FIT+colonoscopy (FIT followed by conventional colonoscopy if the FIT result is positive), FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy (FIT followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy if the FIT result is positive), colonoscopy alone, and AI-assisted colonoscopy were US $138,539, US $122,539, US $203,929, and US $180,444, respectively. When compared with FIT+colonoscopy, the FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy strategy resulted in fewer cancer-related life years lost (5355 y vs 5327 y), a higher number and proportion of CRC cases prevented (120 vs 132 and 3.7% vs 4.1%), more life years saved (280 y vs 308 y), and lower total cost per life year saved (US $944,008 vs US $854,367). FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy, which had the lowest ICER (US $122,539) dominated all other strategies, particularly compared to FIT+colonoscopy, with an ICER of -US $36,462. Among primary screening methods, AI-assisted colonoscopy dominated conventional colonoscopy (ICER -US $39,040).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For an Asian population, FIT followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy represented the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy. It had the lowest ICER and the lowest additional cost among all 4 evaluated strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"27 ","pages":"e67762"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Cost-Effectiveness of AI-Assisted Colonoscopy as a Primary or Secondary Screening Test in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Markov Modeling-Based Cost Effectiveness Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Martin Cs Wong, Junjie Huang, Thomas Yt Lam, Louis Hs Lau, Philip Wy Chiu\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/67762\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and poses a heavy burden on health care systems. Early screening for CRC through colonoscopy can effectively reduce both the incidence and mortality associated with CRC. However, the sensitivity of conventional colonoscopy is limited by the level of experience of physicians. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy has been shown to have higher sensitivity in detecting CRC and mitigating the limitations concerning physician experience, but few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted colonoscopy in CRC screening.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various CRC screening strategies, including no screening, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) positive result followed by a conventional colonoscopy, FIT positive result followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy, direct colonoscopy, and direct AI-assisted colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study modeled a hypothetical population based on current clinical practice in Asia, where CRC screening typically begins at the age of 50 years. The cost-effectiveness of various population-based CRC screening strategies, including AI-assisted colonoscopy, was evaluated by comparing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and outcome measures such as cancer-related life years lost, number of CRC cases prevented, life years saved, and total cost per life year saved. Data from the international literature and the government gazette were accessed to calculate relevant cost and performance estimates. The data were entered into a decision analysis algorithm based on a Markov model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to no screening strategy, the ICERs of FIT+colonoscopy (FIT followed by conventional colonoscopy if the FIT result is positive), FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy (FIT followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy if the FIT result is positive), colonoscopy alone, and AI-assisted colonoscopy were US $138,539, US $122,539, US $203,929, and US $180,444, respectively. When compared with FIT+colonoscopy, the FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy strategy resulted in fewer cancer-related life years lost (5355 y vs 5327 y), a higher number and proportion of CRC cases prevented (120 vs 132 and 3.7% vs 4.1%), more life years saved (280 y vs 308 y), and lower total cost per life year saved (US $944,008 vs US $854,367). FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy, which had the lowest ICER (US $122,539) dominated all other strategies, particularly compared to FIT+colonoscopy, with an ICER of -US $36,462. Among primary screening methods, AI-assisted colonoscopy dominated conventional colonoscopy (ICER -US $39,040).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For an Asian population, FIT followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy represented the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy. It had the lowest ICER and the lowest additional cost among all 4 evaluated strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"volume\":\"27 \",\"pages\":\"e67762\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/67762\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/67762","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:结直肠癌(CRC)是全球第三大常见癌症,给卫生保健系统带来沉重负担。通过结肠镜早期筛查结直肠癌可有效降低结直肠癌的发病率和死亡率。然而,传统结肠镜检查的灵敏度受到医生经验水平的限制。近年来,人工智能(AI)辅助结肠镜检查在检测结直肠癌方面具有更高的灵敏度,减轻了医生经验的局限性,但很少有研究评估人工智能辅助结肠镜检查在结直肠癌筛查中的成本效益。目的:本研究旨在评估各种CRC筛查策略的成本效益,包括不筛查、粪便免疫化学试验(FIT)阳性结果后进行常规结肠镜检查、FIT阳性结果后进行人工智能辅助结肠镜检查、直接结肠镜检查和直接人工智能辅助结肠镜检查。方法:本研究基于亚洲目前的临床实践建立了一个假设的人群模型,在亚洲,CRC筛查通常从50岁开始。各种基于人群的CRC筛查策略,包括人工智能辅助结肠镜检查,通过比较增量成本-效果比(ICERs)和结果指标,如癌症相关生命年损失、预防的CRC病例数、节省的生命年和节省的每生命年总成本,来评估成本-效果。查阅了国际文献和政府公报中的数据,以计算相关的成本和绩效估算。这些数据被输入到基于马尔可夫模型的决策分析算法中。结果:与没有筛查策略相比,FIT+结肠镜检查(如果FIT结果阳性,FIT随后进行常规结肠镜检查)、FIT+人工智能辅助结肠镜检查(如果FIT结果阳性,FIT随后进行人工智能辅助结肠镜检查)、单独结肠镜检查和人工智能辅助结肠镜检查的ICERs分别为138,539美元、122,539美元、203,929美元和180,444美元。与FIT+结肠镜检查相比,FIT+ ai辅助结肠镜检查策略减少了癌症相关生命年(5355年vs 5327年),预防结直肠癌病例的数量和比例更高(120年vs 132年,3.7% vs 4.1%),节省了更多生命年(280年vs 308年),节省的每生命年总成本更低(944,008美元vs 854,367美元)。FIT+人工智能辅助结肠镜检查的ICER最低(122,539美元)在所有其他策略中占主导地位,特别是与FIT+结肠镜检查相比,ICER为- 36,462美元。在主要筛查方法中,人工智能辅助结肠镜检查主导传统结肠镜检查(ICER - 39,040美元)。结论:对于亚洲人群,FIT之后的人工智能辅助结肠镜检查是最具成本效益的CRC筛查策略。在所有4种被评估的策略中,它具有最低的ICER和最低的附加成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Cost-Effectiveness of AI-Assisted Colonoscopy as a Primary or Secondary Screening Test in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Markov Modeling-Based Cost Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and poses a heavy burden on health care systems. Early screening for CRC through colonoscopy can effectively reduce both the incidence and mortality associated with CRC. However, the sensitivity of conventional colonoscopy is limited by the level of experience of physicians. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy has been shown to have higher sensitivity in detecting CRC and mitigating the limitations concerning physician experience, but few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted colonoscopy in CRC screening.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various CRC screening strategies, including no screening, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) positive result followed by a conventional colonoscopy, FIT positive result followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy, direct colonoscopy, and direct AI-assisted colonoscopy.

Methods: This study modeled a hypothetical population based on current clinical practice in Asia, where CRC screening typically begins at the age of 50 years. The cost-effectiveness of various population-based CRC screening strategies, including AI-assisted colonoscopy, was evaluated by comparing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and outcome measures such as cancer-related life years lost, number of CRC cases prevented, life years saved, and total cost per life year saved. Data from the international literature and the government gazette were accessed to calculate relevant cost and performance estimates. The data were entered into a decision analysis algorithm based on a Markov model.

Results: Compared to no screening strategy, the ICERs of FIT+colonoscopy (FIT followed by conventional colonoscopy if the FIT result is positive), FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy (FIT followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy if the FIT result is positive), colonoscopy alone, and AI-assisted colonoscopy were US $138,539, US $122,539, US $203,929, and US $180,444, respectively. When compared with FIT+colonoscopy, the FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy strategy resulted in fewer cancer-related life years lost (5355 y vs 5327 y), a higher number and proportion of CRC cases prevented (120 vs 132 and 3.7% vs 4.1%), more life years saved (280 y vs 308 y), and lower total cost per life year saved (US $944,008 vs US $854,367). FIT+AI-assisted colonoscopy, which had the lowest ICER (US $122,539) dominated all other strategies, particularly compared to FIT+colonoscopy, with an ICER of -US $36,462. Among primary screening methods, AI-assisted colonoscopy dominated conventional colonoscopy (ICER -US $39,040).

Conclusions: For an Asian population, FIT followed by AI-assisted colonoscopy represented the most cost-effective CRC screening strategy. It had the lowest ICER and the lowest additional cost among all 4 evaluated strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信