Objective: The existed economic evaluations of cancer screening in Chinese population are almost all single-cancer focused, evidence on parallel comparison among multiple cancers is lacking. Thus, the aim of this study was, from a priority setting perspective, to compare the cost-effectiveness of six common cancers(colorectal cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, esophageal cancer and stomach cancer) to facilitate policy making in future scaled-up screening in populations in China. Methods: Partially based on our previous single-cancer systematic reviews (colorectal cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer), evidence of economic evaluations of cancer screening in populations in mainland China were systematically updated and integrated. The main updates include: 1) Stomach cancer and esophageal cancer were newly added to the current analysis. 2) The literature searching was extended to 8 literature databases, including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP. 3) The period of publication year was updated to the recent 10 years: January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2018. 4) The study focused on populations in mainland China. Following the standard processes of literature searching, inclusion and exclusion from previous systematic reviews, the basic characteristics, evaluation indicators and main results of the included studies were extracted. All the costs were discounted to 2017 value using the by-year consumer price index of medical and health care residents in China and presented in the Chinese Yuan (CNY). The ratios of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to China's per capita GDP in 2017 were calculated (<1 means very cost-effective, 1-3 means cost-effective, >3 means not cost-effective). Given a specific indicator, the median value among all reported screening strategies for each cancer was calculated, based on which priority ranking was then conducted among all cancers when data available. Results: A total of 45 studies were included, 22 for breast cancer, 12 for colorectal cancer, 6 for stomach cancer, 4 for esophageal cancer (all conducted in high-risk areas), 1 for liver cancer and none for lung cancer (was not then considered for next ranking due to limited numbers of studies). When based on the indicator, the median ratio of cost per life-year saved to China's per capita GDP (reported in 12 studies), the lowest ratio (-0.015) was observed in esophageal cancer among 16 strategies of 2 studies (N=2, n=16), followed by 0.297 for colorectal cancer (N=3, n=12), 0.356 for stomach cancer (N=1, n=4) and 0.896 for breast cancer (N=6, n=52, P(75)=3.602). When based on another commonly used ICER indicator, the median ratio of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to China's per capita GDP (reported in 13 studies), the least cost was found in stomach cancer (0.495, N=3, n=8, P(75)=3.126), followed by esophageal cancer (0.960, N=1, n=4, P(75)=1.762) and breast cancer (2.056, N=9, n=64, P(75)=4.217). Data was not found for colorectal cancer. In addition, cost per cancer case detected was the most adopted indicator (32 studies). The median cost among all screening strategies for each cancer was 14 759 CNY for stomach cancer (N=5, n=7), 49 680 CNY for colorectal cancer (N=12, n=25) and 171 930 CNY for breast cancer (N=13, n=24), respectively. Data was not available for esophageal cancer and rare for precancer cases detected. Evidence related to cost per disability-adjusted life-year gained was not available. Conclusions: At China's national level and limited to the six cancers covered by the current study, the preliminary analysis suggests that stomach cancer and colorectal cancer were the most cost-effective target cancers and could be given priority in the future scaled-up screening in general populations. Esophageal cancer screening should be prioritized in high-risk areas. Breast cancer was also cost-effective in general but some of the intensive screening strategies were marginal. Data on liver cancer and lung cancer were too limited to conclude, and more well-designed studies and high-quality research evidence should be required. This priority ranking might be changed if other common cancers were involved analyses.
目的： 从优先领域确定的角度，采用系统综述方法，分析比较中国6种常见癌症（结直肠癌、乳腺癌、肝癌、肺癌、食管癌和胃癌）的筛查经济性，为扩大人群覆盖的优先癌种决策提供建议。 方法： 系统检索PubMed、EMbase、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普中文科技期刊和中国生物医学文献数据库2009年1月1日至2018年12月31日收录的6种癌症筛查卫生经济学评价的中、英文献。对纳入研究的基本信息、评价方法、每检出1例癌症（或癌前病变）的成本、每挽救1个生命年的成本、每获得1个质量调整生命年的成本等进行摘录和比较。所有成本贴现到2017年，以对应筛查方案增量成本效果比与2017年我国人均国内生产总值（GDP）比值判定是否经济有效（1~3倍为经济有效，<1倍为非常经济有效）。计算同一癌种所有筛查方案的可获得指标的M值，并据此进行多癌种间的优先级排序。 结果： 共纳入45篇文献，包括22项乳腺癌、12项结直肠癌、6项胃癌和4项食管癌研究（肝癌仅1项，肺癌未见报道；信息量小不稳定，不参加后续排序）。以每挽救1个生命年的成本（12项）与人均GDP比值的M值排序结果提示，食管癌最经济（-0.015，研究人群均为高发区），其次为结直肠癌（0.297）、胃癌（0.356）和乳腺癌（0.896）；除乳腺癌（3.602）外，其他癌症的P(75)值均小于1。以每获得1个质量调整生命年的成本（13项）与GDP比值的M值排序结果提示，胃癌最经济有效（0.495，P(75)=3.126），其次为食管癌（0.960，P(75)=1.762）和乳腺癌（2.056，P(75)=4.217）。胃癌检出成本的M值最低，为14 759元，其次为结直肠癌（49 680元）和乳腺癌（171 930元）。 结论： 开展胃癌和结直肠癌筛查更经济有效，在一般人群中可优先考虑推广；食管癌筛查在高发区可优先考虑；乳腺癌筛查总体亦经济有效，但高成本方案需权衡；肝癌和肺癌现有证据较少，还需更多评价。.
Keywords: China; Economics, medical; Neoplasms; Priority setting; Screening; Systematic review.