Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary one-way sensitivity analyses

From: Effectiveness, benefit harm and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Austria

Analysis / adapted parameters

Comments

ICER [EUR/LYG]

FIT vs. Colonoscopy

Base case

 

14,960

Survival probability

Survival probability for patients diagnosed with cancer unadjusted for mode of detection

17,595

Participation rate

Colonoscopy 20.0%; FIT 38.9%, gFOBT 31.1%

FIT is dominant

Participation rate

Colonoscopy 28.0%; FIT 38.9%, gFOBT 31.1%

FIT is dominant

Costs examination

Cost for screening colonoscopy examination EUR 352, polypectomy EUR 98

15,853

Test accuracy

Relative reduction of sensitivity of FIT and gFOBT (0%; 60%)a

14,960

58,131

Discount rate

Assumed discount rate (0; 10%)

8493

48,911

Costs examination

Relative increase in costs of colonoscopy examination and polypectomy (0, 100%)

14,960

16,156

Costs treatment

Inpatient-care costs treating cancer stage UICC IV (relative increase 0, 50%)

14,960

14,678

  1. afurther reduction lead to FIT being the dominated by colonoscopy, gFOBT Guaiac-fecal occult blood test screening strategy, FIT Fecal immunochemical test screening strategy, dominant – screening strategy that is both more effective and less costly compared to all other strategies examined. ICER Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, EUR Euro, LYG Life-years gained, UICC Union for International Cancer Control classification. FIT and gFOBT: 40–75 years old average - risk men and women, annual. Colonoscopy: 50–70 years old average - risk men and women, 10-yearly, all screening strategies include index testing, further diagnostics (including colonoscopy), surveillance (colonoscopy), treatment and follow up interventions