Researchers compared risk ratios for differences in colorectal neoplasia detection rates between FIT and colonoscopy groups using the PubMed, Embase and National Health Services Economic Evaluation databases. They then used a random-effects model to pool these risk ratios and calculate the cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy.
Researchers compared results from six controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies.
Here’s what you should know:
1. More patients underwent FIT (41.6 percent) than colonoscopy tests (21.9 percent).
2. In an intention-to-treat analysis, annual or biennial FIT had a comparable colorectal cancer detection rate but a lower adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rate than one-time colonoscopy.
3. Annual or biennial FIT was more cost-effective than undergoing a colonoscopy every decade.
Researchers concluded, “These findings indicate, at least partly, that FIT is noninferior to colonoscopy in CRC screening in average-risk population,” but advised that their findings “should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.”
More articles on healthcare:
The 13 PE deals in GI in 2019
ASCs responsible for $7.5B in Medicare savings, study finds
Florida ASC, patient pavilion get $25M funding
