Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

Table 7 Summary of cost-effectiveness analyses among different EC screening strategies

Age	Strategy	Costs* (USD: million)	QALYs (1000 years)	ICER	ICER
Age	Strategy	Costs* (USD: million)	QALYs (1000 years)	Scr* vs No_Scr	Scr_fol vs Scr_nfol
40–44	Non_scr	40.02	1655.24	–	–
	Scr_nfol	35.14	1655.59	ED	–
	Scr_fol	35.17	1655.69	− 10,942.57	299.57
45–49	Non_scr	40.63	1557.40	–	–
	Scr_nfol	38.65	1557.31	ED	–
	Scr_fol	38.78	1557.68	− 6611.73	359.67
50–54	Non_scr	40.52	1437.30	–	–
	Scr_nfol	44.85	1436.15	ED	–
	Scr_fol	45.29	1437.07	AD	471.63
55–59	Non_scr	39.83	1295.22	–	–
	Scr_nfol	58.84	1291.50	ED	–
	Scr_fol	60.30	1293.66	AD	675.76
60–64	Non_scr	35.20	1120.73	–	–
	Scr_nfol	70.82	1114.21	ED	–
	Scr_fol	74.17	1117.47	AD	1026.61
65–69	Non_scr	28.49	908.42	–	–
	Scr_nfol	95.20	896.88	ED	–
	Scr_fol	103.19	901.82	AD	1617.72

Scr_fol screening with follow-up, Scr_nfol screening without follow-up, Non_scr nonscreening, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, Scr* screening with or without follow-up, AD absolutely dominated strategy, which was the option that had both more costs and less effectiveness, ED extended dominated strategy, which was the option that was less costly and less effective than the alternative but had a higher ICER
Costs* stage and state-specific costs are displayed in eTable 1 and eTable 2

ISSN: 1478-7547