Lewis Diedron, Jimenez Laura, Mansour Manel Haj, Horton Susan, Wong William W L
School of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2G 1C5, Canada.
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada.
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Jun 27;16(13):2353. doi: 10.3390/cancers16132353.
Gastric cancer (GC) poses notable economic and health burdens in settings where the incidence of disease is prevalent. Some countries have established early screening and treatment programs to address these challenges. The objectives of this systematic review were to summarize the cost-effectiveness of gastric cancer screening presented in the literature and to identify the critical factors that influence the cost-effectiveness of screening. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Economic evaluation studies of gastric cancer screening were reviewed from SCOPUS and PubMed. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) was used to assess the quality of reporting presented in the selected articles. Only primary economic evaluation studies addressing the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit of gastric cancer screening were selected. Two reviewers scrutinized the selected articles (title, abstract, and full text) to determine suitability for the systematic review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Authors' consensus was relied on where disagreements arose. The main outcome measures of concern in the systematic review were cost, effectiveness (as measured by either quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or life-years saved (LYS)), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening versus either no screening or an alternative screening method. Thirty-one studies were selected for the final review. These studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of GC screening based on either primary, secondary, or a combination of primary and secondary interventions. The main primary intervention was () screening with eradication, while the main secondary intervention was endoscopic screening. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated against no screening or screening using an alternative method in both observational and model-based studies. Screening was mainly cost-effective in Asian countries or their diasporas where the prevalence of GC was high. GC screening was generally not cost-effective among Western countries. GC screening can be cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness is dependent on context-specific factors, including geographical location, the prevalence of GC in the local population, and the screening tool adopted. However, there is benefit in targeting high-risk population groups in Asian countries and their diaspora for GC screening.
在胃癌发病率普遍较高的地区,胃癌给经济和健康带来了显著负担。一些国家已制定早期筛查和治疗计划以应对这些挑战。本系统评价的目的是总结文献中呈现的胃癌筛查的成本效益,并确定影响筛查成本效益的关键因素。本系统评价遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。从SCOPUS和PubMed检索了胃癌筛查的经济评价研究。采用《2022年卫生经济评价报告合并标准》(CHEERS 2022)评估所选文章的报告质量。仅选择了涉及胃癌筛查成本效益、成本效用和成本效益的原发性经济评价研究。两名评审员仔细审查所选文章(标题、摘要和全文),以根据纳入和排除标准确定是否适合进行系统评价。出现分歧时依靠作者的共识。系统评价中关注的主要结局指标是成本、效果(以质量调整生命年(QALY)或挽救生命年(LYS)衡量)以及筛查与不筛查或替代筛查方法相比的增量成本效益比(ICER)。最终纳入31项研究进行综述。这些研究基于一级、二级或一级和二级干预措施的组合,调查了胃癌筛查的成本效益。主要的一级干预措施是()根除筛查,而主要的二级干预措施是内镜筛查。在观察性研究和基于模型的研究中,均针对不筛查或采用替代方法进行筛查来评估成本效益。在胃癌患病率较高的亚洲国家或其侨民中,筛查通常具有成本效益。在西方国家,胃癌筛查一般不具有成本效益。胃癌筛查可能具有成本效益,但成本效益取决于具体背景因素,包括地理位置、当地人群中胃癌的患病率以及采用的筛查工具。然而,在亚洲国家及其侨民中,针对高危人群进行胃癌筛查是有益的。