Search

Objectives: Disutility allows to identify how much population values intervention-related harms contributing to knowledge on the benefits/harms ratio of cancer screening programs. This systematic review evaluates disutility related to cancer screening applying a utility theory framework. Methods: Using a predefined protocol, Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google scholar and supplementary sources were systematically searched. The framework grouped disutilities associated with breast, cervical, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening programs into the screening, diagnostic work up, and treatment phases. We assessed the quality of included studies according to the relevance to target population, risk of bias, appropriateness of measure and the time frame. Results: Out of 2840 hits, we included 38 studies, of which 27 measured (and others estimated) disutilities. Around 70% of studies had medium to high-level quality. Measured disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss were 0–0.03 and 0–0.0013 respectively in screening phases. Both disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss had similar ranges in diagnostic work up (0–0.26), and treatment (0.09–0.27) phases. We found no measured disutilities available for lung cancer screening and—little evidence for disutilities in treatment phase. Almost 40% of the estimated disutility values were above the range of measured ones. Conclusions: Cancer screening programs led to low disutities related to screening phase, and low to moderate disutilities related to diagnostic work up and treatment phases. These disutility values varied by the measurement instrument applied, and were higher in studies with lower quality. The estimated disutility values comparing to the measured ones tended to overestimate the harms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality is higher in socioeconomically deprived groups for a variety of reasons, but is exacerbated by poorer screening uptake. However, many strategies for improving screening participation exist. This analysis aimed to model the impact of screening on CRC inequalities in England and then compare different strategies for increasing participation, to determine the most cost-effective methods for reducing screening-induced inequalities. An existing health economic model, Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel was adapted. Screening-eligible individuals were simulated to investigate the impact of screening on CRC inequalities. Following this, four strategies for promoting screening participation were compared: 1) annual re-invitation of screening non-participants; 2) a national media advertising campaign; 3) text message reminders for non-participants; 4) health promotion in deprived populations. Cost-effectiveness, CRC outcomes, resource impacts and effects on CRC inequalities were assessed. Inequalities analysis was based on age-standardised CRC mortality by socioeconomic group. Screening was found to be highly cost-effective but CRC inequalities increased as screening effectiveness improved. Annual re-invitation of non-participants was most cost-effective for promoting particiption (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = £4404 per quality-adjusted life-year), reducing CRC mortality (11,129 deaths averted), and reducing screening-induced inequality (slope of inequalities reduced from 20.80 to 19.38), although it required 42% more screening kits to be sent out. Other strategies were cost-effective compared with screening alone, and improved CRC outcomes, but had varying impacts on inequalities. Whilst bowel cancer screening increases socioeconomic inequalities in CRC mortality, effective and cost-effective strategies are available for mitigating screening-induced inequalities. • CRC inequalities occur due to higher CRC risk, higher CRC mortality and lower screening uptake in low socioeconomic groups. • Screening for CRC is highly cost-effective but is likely to increase inequalities in CRC mortality. • Effective and cost-effective strategies are available for mitigating screening-induced inequalities. • Annual re-invitation of screening non-participants is a cost-effective way to reduce screening-induced CRC inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites people between the ages of 60 and 74 to take a Faecal Immunochemical Test every two years. This programme was interrupted during the coronavirus pandemic. The research aimed: (1) to estimate the impact of colorectal cancer (CRC) Faecal Immunochemical Test screening pauses of different lengths and the actual coronavirus-related screening pause in England, and (2) to analyse the most effective and cost-effective strategies to re-start CRC screening to prepare for future disruptions. The analysis used the validated Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel built in the R programming language. The model simulated the life course of a representative English screening population from 2019, by age, sex, socio-economic deprivation, and prior screening history. The modelling scenarios were based on assumptions and data from screening centres in England. Pausing bowel screening in England due to coronavirus pandemic is predicted to increase CRC deaths by 0.73% within 10 years and 0.13% over the population's lifetime, with excess deaths due to peak in 2023. More deaths are expected in men and people aged over 70. Pausing screening for longer would result in greater additional CRC cases and deaths. Postponing screening for everyone would be the most cost-effective strategy to minimise the impact of screening disruption without any additional endoscopy capacity. If endoscopy capacity can be increased, temporarily raising the Faecal Immunochemical Test threshold to 190 μg/g may help to minimise CRC deaths, particularly if screening programmes start from age 50 in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]