Skip Navigation



Journal of Public Health Advance Access published online on June 17, 2008
Journal of Public Health, doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdn045
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/3/293    most recent
fdn045v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Karnon, J.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, K. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Karnon, J.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, K. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008, Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved

Cost-utility analysis of screening high-risk groups for anal cancer


Jonathan Karnon, Associate Professor in Health Economics1
Roy Jones, Research Fellow2
Carolyn Czoski-Murray, Research Fellow2
Kevin J. Smith, Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer2

1 School of Population Health and Clinical Practice, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
2 School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK


Address correspondence to Jonathan Karnon, E-mail: jonathan.karnon{at}adelaide.edu.au


  Abstract

Objectives Cost-utility analysis of screening for anal cancer in high-risk groups from a UK perspective.

Methods Criteria for the assessment of screening programmes were combined in a Markov model representing the natural history of anal cancer and HIV infection in the UK population of men who have sex with men (MSM). Alternative screening programmes were overlaid on the natural history model to evaluate their impact. The model was populated using data derived from a systematic review of the literature, and calibrated probabilistically to represent joint uncertainty in the input parameters.

Results Reference case results showed screening is unlikely to be cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses identified two important parameters: regression from low-grade anal intra-epithelial neoplasia (AIN) and utility effects. Increased AIN regression rates resulted in a minimum incremental cost per QALY gained of £39 405, whereas a best case scenario reduced the ratio to £20 996.

Conclusions There are major areas of uncertainty. New analyses of existing primary data, undertaken specifically to inform regression rates may usefully update key parameters at little additional cost. If these analyses increase the likelihood that screening is cost-effective, further studies of the utility effects of treatment for high-grade AIN, and potential screening attendance rates may be justified.

Keywords: cancer, economics, screening


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.