Cost-effectiveness of the different strategies for CRC screening in the simulated cohort of 100 000 American subjects
| Strategy | Life-years saved | Cost (US$) | ∆ Life-years saved | ∆ Cost (US$) | ICER (US$ per life-year saved) |
| No screening | – | 222 705 301 | – | – | – |
| Aspirin | 6232 | 179 120 901 | 6232 | −43 584 400 | Dominates (saving US$436 per person)* |
| Sigmoidoscopy | 7945 | 281 768 855 | – | – | – |
| Aspirin/sigmoidoscopy | 12 215 | 253 964 689 | 5983 | 74 843 788 | 12 509† |
| Colonoscopy | 13 922 | 310 511 159 | – | – | – |
| Aspirin/colonoscopy | 15 108 | 316 932 044 | 2893 | 62 967 355 | 21 765‡ |
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.