% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Ran:143001,
      author       = {T. Ran$^*$ and C.-Y. Cheng$^*$ and B. Misselwitz and H.
                      Brenner$^*$ and J. Ubels$^*$ and M. Schlander$^*$},
      title        = {{C}ost-effectiveness of {C}olorectal {C}ancer {S}creening
                      {S}trategies-a {S}ystematic {R}eview.},
      journal      = {Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology},
      volume       = {17},
      number       = {10},
      issn         = {1542-3565},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2019-00626},
      pages        = {1969-1981.e15},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {Widespread screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has
                      reduced its incidence and mortality. Previous studies
                      investigated the economic effects of CRC screening. We
                      performed a systematic review to provide up to date evidence
                      of the cost effectiveness of CRC screening strategies by
                      answering 3 research questions.We searched PubMed, NHS EED,
                      SSCI, EconLit, and 3 supplemental databases for original
                      articles published in English from January 2010 through
                      December 2017. All monetary values were converted to United
                      States (US) dollars (year 2016). For all research questions,
                      we extracted, or calculated (if necessary), per-person costs
                      and life years (LY) and/or quality-adjusted LYs (QALY), as
                      well as the incremental costs per LY gained or QALY gained
                      compared to the baseline strategy. A cost-saving strategy is
                      defined as one that was less costly and equally or more
                      effective than the baseline strategy. Net monetary benefit
                      approach was used to answer research question 2.Our review
                      comprised 33 studies (17 from Europe, 11 from North America,
                      4 from Asia, and 1 from Australia). Annual and biennial
                      guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests, annual and biennial
                      fecal immunochemical tests, colonoscopy every 10 years, and
                      flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years were cost-effective
                      (even cost saving in most US models) compared with no
                      screening. Additionally, colonoscopy every 10 years was less
                      costly and/or more effective than other common strategies in
                      the US. Newer strategies such as computed tomographic
                      colonography, every 5 or 10 years, were cost-effective
                      compared to no screening.In an updated review, we found that
                      common CRC screening strategies and computed tomographic
                      colonography continued to be cost-effective compared to no
                      screening. There were discrepancies among studies from
                      different regions, which could be associated with the model
                      types or model assumptions.},
      subtyp        = {Review Article},
      cin          = {C070 / C120 / C100},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C120-20160331 /
                      I:(DE-He78)C100-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:30659991},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.014},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/143001},
}