Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of a Colon Capsule Endoscopy in a Population-Based Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer
Authors:
- Gerard Carot-SansGCGerard Carot-Sans
- Anastasios KoulaouzidisAnastasios Koulaouzidis
- Aitor Gonzalez-AmezcuaAGAitor Gonzalez-Amezcua
- Ulrik DedingUDUlrik Deding
- Konstantinos TriantafyllouKonstantinos Triantafyllou
- Dan OuchiDODan Ouchi
- Benedicte Schelde-OlesenBSBenedicte Schelde-Olesen
- Gunnar BaatrupGBGunnar Baatrup
- Jordi Piera-JiménezJPJordi Piera-Jiménez
- Claudia Erika Delgado- EspinozaCEClaudia Erika Delgado- Espinoza
- Claus Duedal PedersenCPClaus Duedal Pedersen
Preprint
Abstract
Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been proposed as a non-invasive alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, offering greater patient comfort and potentially reducing healthcare burden. However, its cost-effectiveness in population-based screening remains uncertain. Methods: This study used a state-transition (Markov) model to simulate lifetime outcomes of CRC screening in Denmark, Scotland, and Spain, comparing the standard pathway based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) followed by colonoscopy with an alternative pathway replacing colonoscopy with CCE after a positive FIT result. The model incorporated costs (2024 euros), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and CRC cases avoided, applying a yearly discount rate of 3%. Deterministic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in capsule cost, adherence, and reinvestigation rates for non-advanced polyps. Results: Across all settings, CCE resulted in higher costs but slightly increased effectiveness and utility (mean QALYs 28.7 vs. 28.8; CRC detected 0.032–0.034 vs. 0.035–0.037 per person). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from €43,538 in Spain to €136,930 in Denmark per additional CRC detected. Capsule cost was the main driver of ICER variation, whereas adherence rates had minimal effect on cost-effectiveness. Changes in the prevalence of non-advanced polyps had a modest impact, except when capsule prices were high. Conclusions: Overall, replacing colonoscopy with CCE slightly increases detection and health gains at the expense of higher costs. Cost-effectiveness largely depends on capsule price and adherence. Artificial intelligence-assisted CCE interpretation may further improve diagnostic and economic performance, potentially supporting adoption in large-scale CRC screening programs.Keywords
Funding Information
- European Commission (HORIZON program (Grant Agreement No. 101057400))
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Socioeconomic differences in discrepancies between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopyHeliyon, 2024
- A registry-based study on universal screening for defective mismatch repair in colorectal cancer in Denmark highlights disparities in screening uptake and counselling referralsTranslational Oncology, 2024
- Socioeconomic differences in expected discomfort from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopyPreventive Medicine, 2023
- Interobserver agreement between an artificial intelligence algorithm and colon capsule endoscopy readers on bowel-cleansing qualityiGIE, 2023
- Localised colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-upAnnals of Oncology, 2020
- Capsule endoscopy vs. colonoscopy vs. histopathology in colorectal cancer screening: matched analyses of polyp size, morphology, and location estimatesInternational Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2018
- Polyp Resection - Controversial Practices and Unanswered QuestionsClinical and Translational Gastroenterology, 2017
- Temporal trends in mode, site and stage of presentation with the introduction of colorectal cancer screening: a decade of experience from the West of ScotlandBritish Journal of Cancer, 2015
- Cost-effectiveness modeling of colorectal cancer: Computed tomography colonography vs colonoscopy or fecal occult blood testsEuropean Journal of Radiology, 2012
- Prevalence of Clinically Important Histology in Small AdenomasClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2006