Cost-utility analysis of colonoscopy or faecal immunochemical test for population-based organised colorectal cancer screening

Background: Organised programmes for colorectal cancer screening demand a high burden of medical and economic resources. The preferred methods are the faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to perform an economic analysis and comparison between these tests in Europe. Methods: We used a Markov cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing biennial faecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy every 10 years screening versus non-screening in Portugal. The population was screened, aged from 50\u201374 years, and efficacy was evaluated in quality-adjusted life years. For the base-case scenario, the faecal immunochemical test cost was \u20ac3 with 50% acceptance and colonoscopy cost was \u20ac397 with 38% acceptance. The threshold was set at \u20ac39,760/quality-adjusted life years and the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: Screening by biennial faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in incremental utilities of 0.00151 quality-adjusted life years and 0.00185 quality-adjusted life years at additional costs of \u20ac4 and \u20ac191, respectively. The faecal immunochemical test was the most cost-effective option providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of \u20ac2694/quality-adjusted life years versus \u20ac103,633/quality-adjusted life years for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy capacity would have to increase 1.3% for a faecal immunochemical test programme or 31% for colonoscopy. Conclusion: Biennial faecal immunochemical test screening is better than colonoscopy as it is cost-effective, allows more individuals to get screened, and provides a more rational use of the endoscopic capacity available