Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 May;121(5):952-60.
doi: 10.1002/lary.21412. Epub 2011 Mar 7.

The cost-effectiveness of community-based screening for oral cancer in high-risk males in the United States: a Markov decision analysis approach

Affiliations

The cost-effectiveness of community-based screening for oral cancer in high-risk males in the United States: a Markov decision analysis approach

Raj C Dedhia et al. Laryngoscope. 2011 May.

Abstract

Objective: The 2004 US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines do not recommend routinely screening adults for oral cancer given no proven mortality reduction. A large cluster-randomized controlled screening trial in Kerala, India, in 2005, however, reported a significant reduction in mortality for screened male tobacco and/or alcohol users. In the United States, office-based screening efforts targeting males of high risk (regular use of tobacco and/or alcohol) have been unsuccessful due to poor attendance. Given the newfound screening mortality benefit to this high-risk subpopulation, we sought to ascertain the cost-effectiveness threshold of a yearly, community outreach screening program for males more than 40 years regularly using tobacco and/or alcohol.

Study design: Markov decision analysis model; societal perspective.

Methods: A literature search was performed to determine event probabilities, health utilities, and cost parameters to serve as model inputs. Screen versus No-Screen strategies were modeled using assumptions and published data. The primary outcome was the difference in costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between the two cohorts, representing the potential budget for a screening program. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed for several key parameters.

Results: The No-Screen arm was dominated with an incremental cost of $258 and an incremental effectiveness of -0.0414 QALYs. Using the $75,000/QALY metric, the maximum allowable budget for a screening program equals $3,363 ($258 + $3,105) per screened person over a 40-year time course.

Conclusion: Given the significant health benefits and financial savings via early detection in the screened cohort, a community-based screening program targeting high-risk males is likely to be cost-effective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no financial relationships or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Simplified Model
Figure 2
Figure 2
Disease Stages Within Each Cohort

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jameson MJLP. Neoplasms of the Oral Cavity. In: Johnson BJBJT, editor. Head & Neck Surgery -Otolaryngology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. pp. 1551–1556.
    1. Ling H, Gadalla S, Israel E, et al. Oral cancer exams among cigarette smokers in Maryland. Cancer Detect Prev. 2006;30:499–506. - PubMed
    1. Jemal A, Clegg LX, Ward E, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2001, with a special feature regarding survival. Cancer. 2004;101:3–27. - PubMed
    1. Scattoloni J. Screening for Oral Cancer: Brief Evidence Update
    1. Sankaranarayanan R, Ramadas K, Thomas G, et al. Effect of screening on oral cancer mortality in Kerala, India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1927–1933. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources