skip to main content
10.5555/1162708.1163099acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

A comparison of screening methods for colorectal cancer using simulation modeling

Published: 04 December 2005 Publication History

Abstract

We used a discrete-event simulation model of the natural history of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) to do a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the latest CRC screening strategies recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the newest screening modalities for which clinical efficacy has been established. Cost-effectiveness was based on discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis examined the uncertainty in important parameter estimates. Considering all populations (average and high risk), annual Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT), Sigmoidoscopy every five years and annual FOBT, and Colonoscopy every ten years were the three strategies that demonstrated a greater than 50% probability of not being dominated in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Depending on the maximum acceptable marginal cost-effectiveness value, any of these procedures have a high likelihood of becoming preferred (most effective strategy given a specific cost limit per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) saved).

References

[1]
Al, M. J., B. A. van Hout, B. C. Michel and F. F. Rutten. 1998. Sample size calculation in economic evaluations. Health Economics 7: 327--35.
[2]
Briggs, A. H., G Blackhouse, and B. J. O'Brien. 2002. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models. Medical Decision Making 22: 290--308.
[3]
Briggs, A. H., B. J. O'Brien, and G Blackhouse. 2002. Thinking outside the box: Recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annual Review of Public Health 23: 377--401.
[4]
Cubbage, D. 2004. Simulation of colorectal cancer: The natural history of disease. Master thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Available via <www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-05282004-134141/unrestricted/etd.pdf> {accessed March 30, 2005}.
[5]
Devroye, L. 1986. Non-uniform random variate generation. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[6]
Fenn, P., A. McGuire, M. Backhouse, and D. Jones. 1996. Modeling programme costs in economic evaluation. Journal of Health Economics 15: 115--25.
[7]
Fieller, E. C. 1954. Some problems in interval estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 16: 175--83.
[8]
Gelman, A., J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and B. D. Rubin. 2004. Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall.
[9]
Gold, M. R., J. E. Seigel, L. B. Russell, and M. C. Weinstein. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[10]
Kelton, W. D., R. P. Sadowski, and D. T. Sturrock. 2004. Simulation with Arena. 3d ed., Series in Industrial Engineering and Management Science. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
[11]
L'Ecuyer, P. L, R. Simard, J. E Chen, and D. W Kelton. 2002. An object-oriented random-number package with many long streams and substreams. Operations Research 50, (6): 1073--1075.
[12]
Lothgren, M. and M. Zethraues. 2000. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Economics 9: 623--30.
[13]
Mandel, J. S., J. H. Bond, T. R. Church et al. 1993. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study {published erratum appears in N Engl J Med 1993 Aug 26; 329(9):672}. New England Journal of Medicine 328: 1365--71.
[14]
Roberts, S. D. 2004. Simulation input without data. Proceedings of 6th Annual Simulation Solutions Conference '04, March 16, 2004, Orlando, Florida.
[15]
Tafazzoli, A. 2004. A comparison of screening methods for colorectal cancer. Master thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Available via <www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11232004-160814/unrestricted/etd.pdf> {accessed March 30, 2005}.
[16]
Winawer, S., R. Fletcher, D. K. Rex, et al. 2003. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale -- Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124: 544--60.

Cited By

View all
  • (2007)Important factors in screening for colorectal cancerProceedings of the 39th conference on Winter simulation: 40 years! The best is yet to come10.5555/1351542.1351803(1475-1482)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2007
  • (2007)Development of a simulation model of colorectal cancerACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation10.1145/1315575.131557918:1(1-30)Online publication date: 12-Dec-2007
  1. A comparison of screening methods for colorectal cancer using simulation modeling

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    WSC '05: Proceedings of the 37th conference on Winter simulation
    December 2005
    2769 pages
    ISBN:0780395190

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Winter Simulation Conference

    Publication History

    Published: 04 December 2005

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Acceptance Rates

    WSC '05 Paper Acceptance Rate 209 of 316 submissions, 66%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 3,413 of 5,075 submissions, 67%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 08 Mar 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2007)Important factors in screening for colorectal cancerProceedings of the 39th conference on Winter simulation: 40 years! The best is yet to come10.5555/1351542.1351803(1475-1482)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2007
    • (2007)Development of a simulation model of colorectal cancerACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation10.1145/1315575.131557918:1(1-30)Online publication date: 12-Dec-2007

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media