American Association for Cancer Research
10559965epi160786-sup-172656_2_supp_3950961_lnmqdh.docx (21.11 kB)

Supplementary Table S2 from Do Men and Women Need to Be Screened Differently with Fecal Immunochemical Testing? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Download (21.11 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2023-03-31, 14:07 authored by Miriam P. van der Meulen, Atija Kapidzic, Monique E. van Leerdam, Alex van der Steen, Ernst J. Kuipers, Manon C.W. Spaander, Harry J. de Koning, Lieke Hol, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar

Calibrated specificity and sensitivity per adenoma of the FIT to CORERO-1 data for men and women



Background: Several studies suggest that test characteristics for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) differ by gender, triggering a debate on whether men and women should be screened differently. We used the microsimulation model MISCAN-Colon to evaluate whether screening stratified by gender is cost-effective.Methods: We estimated gender-specific FIT characteristics based on first-round positivity and detection rates observed in a FIT screening pilot (CORERO-1). Subsequently, we used the model to estimate harms, benefits, and costs of 480 gender-specific FIT screening strategies and compared them with uniform screening.Results: Biennial FIT screening from ages 50 to 75 was less effective in women than men [35.7 vs. 49.0 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, respectively] at higher costs (€42,161 vs. −€5,471, respectively). However, the incremental QALYs gained and costs of annual screening compared with biennial screening were more similar for both genders (8.7 QALYs gained and €26,394 for women vs. 6.7 QALYs gained and €20,863 for men). Considering all evaluated screening strategies, optimal gender-based screening yielded at most 7% more QALYs gained than optimal uniform screening and even resulted in equal costs and QALYs gained from a willingness-to-pay threshold of €1,300.Conclusions: FIT screening is less effective in women, but the incremental cost-effectiveness is similar in men and women. Consequently, screening stratified by gender is not more cost-effective than uniform FIT screening.Impact: Our conclusions support the current policy of uniform FIT screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(8); 1328–36. ©2017 AACR.

Usage metrics

    Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention



    Ref. manager