Prevention of colorectal cancer: Costs and effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy

K. W. Geul*, F. T. Bosman, M. Van Blankenstein, D. E. Grobbee, J. H.P. Wilson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that endoscopic polypectomy is a very effective means of preventing colorectal cancer. The feasibility of population-wide endoscopic screening is not established, however. The appearance of adenomatosis around the age of 60 in one-third of the population, many years prior to the manifestation of significant numbers of colorectal cancers, and the observation that the risk of developing metachronous adenomas correlates with pre-existing numbers of adenomas per colon suggest that a baseline endoscopy at 60 years with minimal follow-up may be a feasible screening strategy with a high rate of primary prevention in average risk individuals. Projections were made of the costs and benefits of various scenarios. A key element of this analysis was the assessment of probabilities to develop metachronous adenomas as a function of prior adenoma status by a mathematical approach using autopsy data. A screening strategy consisting of a baseline sigmoidoscopy at 60 years with follow-up restricted to 6% of the population was estimated to prevent 50% of colorectal cancers Occurring after 60 years. A range of alternative scenarios, giving rates of primary prevention of colorectal cancer from 40 to 70%, had costs which were comparable to those of breast-cancer screening, but was far superior considering effectivity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)79-87
Number of pages9
JournalScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, Supplement
Volume32
Issue number223
Publication statusPublished - 10 Jul 1997

Keywords

  • Colorectal cancer
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Endoscopy
  • Metachronous adenoma
  • Prevention
  • Screening

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Prevention of colorectal cancer: Costs and effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this