Skip to main content

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

From: Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

Age Strategy Costs* (USD: million) QALYs (1000 years) ICER ICER
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
  1. 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
  2. Costs* stage and state-specific costs are displayed in eTable 1 and eTable 2
\