Table 2

Cost-effectiveness of the different strategies for CRC screening in the simulated cohort of 100 000 American subjects

StrategyLife-years savedCost (US$)∆ Life-years saved∆ Cost (US$)ICER (US$ per life-year saved)
No screening222 705 301
Aspirin6232179 120 9016232−43 584 400Dominates (saving US$436 per person)*
Sigmoidoscopy7945281 768 855
Aspirin/sigmoidoscopy12 215253 964 689598374 843 78812 509
Colonoscopy13 922310 511 159
Aspirin/colonoscopy15 108316 932 044289362 967 35521 765
  • Relative ICERs have been calculated only for non-dominated strategies. Costs and life-years have been discounted at 3% per year. ICERs of strategies ruled out by weak or strong dominance were not reported.

  • ∆ life-years saved/costs indicate the incremental number of life-years gained/costs compared with the next-best non-dominated strategy.

  • * When a strategy was more effective and less costly than the less cost-effective strategy (ie, the latter being dominated), saving per person instead of the ICER was provided.

  • It represents the ICER between aspirin/sigmoidoscopy and aspirin strategies, sigmoidoscopy alone being dominated by aspirin/sigmoidoscopy.

  • It represents the ICER between aspirin/colonoscopy and aspirin/sigmoidoscopy strategies, colonoscopy alone being less cost-effective (ie, weak dominance) than aspirin/colonoscopy.

  • CRC, colorectal cancer; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.