» Articles » PMID: 27022228

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Population-based Screening of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparing Ultrasonography with Two-stage Screening

Abstract

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of two population-based hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening programs, two-stage biomarker-ultrasound method and mass screening using abdominal ultrasonography (AUS).

Methods: In this study, we applied a Markov decision model with a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon for the general population-based cohorts in an area with high HCC incidence, such as Taiwan. The accuracy of biomarkers and ultrasonography was estimated from published meta-analyses. The costs of surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment were based on a combination of published literature, Medicare payments, and medical expenditure at the National Taiwan University Hospital. The main outcome measure was cost per life-year gained with a 3% annual discount rate.

Results: The results show that the mass screening using AUS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD39825 per life-year gained, whereas two-stage screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD49733 per life-year gained, as compared with no screening. Screening programs with an initial screening age of 50 years old and biennial screening interval were the most cost-effective. These findings were sensitive to the costs of screening tools and the specificity of biomarker screening.

Conclusion: Mass screening using AUS is more cost effective than two-stage biomarker-ultrasound screening. The most optimal strategy is an initial screening age at 50 years old with a 2-year inter-screening interval.

Citing Articles

Real-world 10-year retrospective study of the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of primary liver cancer in China.

Yan Y, Liu X, Zhang S, Tian Q World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2023; 15(5):859-877.

PMID: 37275443 PMC: 10237028. DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v15.i5.859.


External validation of the Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index in a Swedish population.

Astrom H, Ndegwa N, Hagstrom H JHEP Rep. 2021; 3(5):100343.

PMID: 34611618 PMC: 8476346. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2021.100343.


Evaluation of the Combined Application of AFP, AFP-L3%, and DCP for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis: A Meta-analysis.

Wang X, Zhang Y, Yang N, He H, Tao X, Kou C Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020:5087643.

PMID: 33015170 PMC: 7519464. DOI: 10.1155/2020/5087643.


Biomarkers imaging in the early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma and prognosis.

Balaceanu L World J Clin Cases. 2019; 7(12):1367-1382.

PMID: 31363465 PMC: 6656675. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i12.1367.


Treatment and Cost of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Taiwan.

Nguang S, Wu C, Liang C, Tai W, Yang S, Ku M Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15(12).

PMID: 30486324 PMC: 6313960. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15122655.


References
1.
Bolondi L, Sofia S, Siringo S, Gaiani S, Casali A, Zironi G . Surveillance programme of cirrhotic patients for early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost effectiveness analysis. Gut. 2001; 48(2):251-9. PMC: 1728189. DOI: 10.1136/gut.48.2.251. View

2.
Beasley R . Hepatitis B virus. The major etiology of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 1988; 61(10):1942-56. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19880515)61:10<1942::aid-cncr2820611003>3.0.co;2-j. View

3.
Yang B, Zhang B, Tang Z . [Randomized controlled prospective study of secondary prevention for primary liver cancer]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2001; 79(12):887-9. View

4.
Chen T, Chen C, Yen M, Lu S, Sun C, Huang G . Ultrasound screening and risk factors for death from hepatocellular carcinoma in a high risk group in Taiwan. Int J Cancer. 2002; 98(2):257-61. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.10122. View

5.
Arguedas M, Chen V, Eloubeidi M, Fallon M . Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis: a cost-utility analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98(3):679-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07327.x. View