Frontiers in Public Health (Aug 2022)

Benefit-to-harm ratio and cost-effectiveness of government-recommended gastric cancer screening in China: A modeling study

  • Shuxia Qin,
  • Xuehong Wang,
  • Sini Li,
  • Sini Li,
  • Chongqing Tan,
  • Xiaohui Zeng,
  • Meiyu Wu,
  • Ye Peng,
  • Liting Wang,
  • Xiaomin Wan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.955120
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10

Abstract

Read online

ObjectiveCurrent guidelines recommend the gastric cancer risk score scale (GCRSS) for screening in gastric cancer (GC) high-risk populations in China. This study aimed to estimate the clinical benefits, harms, cost, and cost-effectiveness of the GCRSS screening strategy from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.Materials and methodsUsing a microsimulation model, we evaluated 7 screening scenarios of the GCRSS with varying starting ages. We simulated 100,000 individuals from the age of 20 for each screening scenario. The main outcomes included GC incidence reduction, number of cause-specific deaths, costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and benefit-to-harm ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were done to explore the robustness of model findings.ResultsScreening with the GCRSS strategy at the age of 40 years (40-GCRSS) provided the greatest reduction of GC incidence by 70.6%, with 7,374 GC deaths averted per 100,000 individuals and the lowest benefit-to-harm ratio of 0.392. Compared with no screening or previous less costly strategy, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,655 per QALY, the 40-GCRSS strategy was cost-effective, with ICERs of $12,586 and $29,115 per QALY, respectively. Results were robust across univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The 40-GCRSS strategy showed a 0.856 probability of being cost-effective at a $37,655 per QALY WTP threshold.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that the GCRSS strategy is effective and cost-effective in reducing the GC disease burden in China from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Screening from the age of 40 would be the optimal strategy.

Keywords