Rubenstein Joel H, Omidvari Amir-Houshang, Lauren Brianna N, Hazelton William D, Lim Francesca, Tan Sarah Xinhui, Kong Chung Yin, Lee Minyi, Ali Ayman, Hur Chin, Inadomi John M, Luebeck Georg, Lansdorp-Vogelaar Iris
Center for Clinical Management Research, Lieutenant Charles S. Kettles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Barrett's Esophagus Program, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Program, Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gastroenterology. 2022 Jul;163(1):163-173. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.037. Epub 2022 Mar 29.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest endoscopic screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among individuals with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and additional risk factors. We aimed to determine at what age to perform screening and whether sex and race should influence the decision.
We conducted comparative cost-effectiveness analyses using 3 independent simulation models. For each combination of sex and race (White/Black, 100,000 individuals each), we considered 41 screening strategies, including one-time or repeated screening. The optimal strategy was that with the highest effectiveness and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
Among White men, 536 EAC deaths were projected without screening, and screening individuals with GERD twice at ages 45 and 60 years was optimal. Screening the entire White male population once at age 55 years was optimal in 26% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs. Black men had fewer EAC deaths without screening (n = 84), and screening those with GERD once at age 55 years was optimal. Although White women had slightly more EAC deaths (n = 103) than Black men, the optimal strategy was no screening, although screening those with GERD once at age 55 years was optimal in 29% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs. Black women had a very low burden of EAC deaths (n = 29), and no screening was optimal, as benefits were very small and some strategies caused net harm.
The optimal strategy for screening differs by race and sex. White men with GERD symptoms can potentially be screened more intensely than is recommended currently. Screening women is not cost-effective and may cause net harm for Black women.
指南建议对有胃食管反流病(GERD)症状及其他风险因素的个体进行食管癌(EAC)的内镜筛查。我们旨在确定进行筛查的年龄,以及性别和种族是否应影响这一决策。
我们使用3个独立的模拟模型进行了成本效益比较分析。对于性别和种族的每种组合(白人/黑人,各10万人),我们考虑了41种筛查策略,包括一次性或重复筛查。最优策略是有效性最高且每获得一个质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比<$100,000的策略。
在未进行筛查的情况下,预计白人男性中有536例EAC死亡,45岁和60岁时对GERD患者进行两次筛查为最优策略。在26%的概率敏感性分析中,55岁时对整个白人男性人群进行一次筛查为最优策略。未进行筛查时黑人男性的EAC死亡人数较少(n = 84),55岁时对GERD患者进行一次筛查为最优策略。尽管白人女性的EAC死亡人数(n = 103)略多于黑人男性,但最优策略是不进行筛查,不过在29%的概率敏感性分析中,55岁时对GERD患者进行一次筛查为最优策略。黑人女性的EAC死亡负担非常低(n = 29),不进行筛查为最优策略,因为获益非常小,且一些策略会造成净危害。
筛查的最优策略因种族和性别而异。有GERD症状的白人男性可能比目前建议的筛查强度更大。对女性进行筛查不具有成本效益,且可能对黑人女性造成净危害。