Jennifer Sambrook

The cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer

Background: Published decision analyses show that screening for colorectal cancer is cost-effective. However, because of the number of tests available, the optimal screening strategy in Canada is unknown. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of 10 strategies for colorectal cancer screening, as well as no screening, incorporating quality of life, noncompliance and data on the costs and benefits of chemotherapy. Methods: We used a probabilistic Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 50-year-old average-risk Canadians without screening and with screening by each test. We populated the model with data from the published literature. We calculated costs from the perspective of a third-party payer, with inflation to 2007 Canadian dollars. Results: Of the 10 strategies considered, we focused on three tests currently being used for population screening in some Canadian provinces: low-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test, performed annually; fecal immunochemical test, performed annually; and colonoscopy, performed every 10 years. These strategies reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer by 44%, 65% and 81%, and mortality by 55%, 74% and 83%, respectively, compared with no screening. These strategies generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of

Indirect comparison of the efficacy of cetuximab and cisplatin in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

9159,

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Canada of Dasatinib Versus Imatinib for the Treatment of Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia in Patients with Imatinib Resistance.

611 and

Brief review Indirect comparison of the efficacy of cetuximab and cisplatin in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

6133 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. The findings were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Colonoscopy every 10 years yielded the greatest net health benefit. Interpretation: Screening for colorectal cancer is cost-effective over conventional levels of willingness to pay. Annual high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing, such as a fecal immunochemical test, or colonoscopy every 10 years offer the best value for the money in Canada.

The Cost of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in an Outpatient Clinic: An Activity-Based Costing Study

Abstract Background: Cetuximab (Erbitux *Erbitux is a registered trade name of Bristol–Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.) is the only new medical therapy for locally and regionally advanced SCCHN to be licensed in industrialized countries in the past 15 years and presents an alternative to cisplatin which is the current therapeutic standard. In the absence of a published head-to-head trial, we estimated the relative benefit of cetuximab and cisplatin using an indirect comparison methodology. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the Medline and Embase databases between 1998 and 2008 to find published trials of cisplatin plus radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone and synthesized the information with meta-analysis. Those results were combined with trial-based results of cetuximab plus radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone. Inclusion criteria stipulated that cisplatin be administered concurrently with radiation, the radiation protocol be comparable to the registration trial for cisplatin (once-daily, twice-daily, or concomitant boost) and cisplatin dosing be comparable to that in common use (i.e. day 1, 22 and 43 of treatment). Endpoints were locoregional control and overall survival. Two reviewers examined 269 abstracts which yielded four trials meeting the inclusion criteria. Results: There was little evidence of superiority of either platinum-based radiotherapy or cetuximab-based radiotherapy. All estimated hazard ratios were near 1.0 (equivalence), all confidence intervals spanned the null value (1.0), and no consistent pattern was observed regarding the direction of the effect. The results remained robust in sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: This is the first quantitative analysis allowing formal comparison between cetuximab and radiotherapy versus cisplatin and radiotherapy. Based on state-of-the-art methodology for indirect comparisons, it was not possible to identify either treatment regimen as superior in prolonging either locoregional control or overall survival. Until the publication of more studies, and particularly a head-to-head comparison, the two treatments may be considered equally efficacious when given alongside radiotherapy. The choice of treatment may focus on the toxicity profile of the medications.