Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 公共衛生學院
  3. 健康政策與管理研究所
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/31433
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor陳秀熙(Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen),楊銘欽(Ming-Chin Yang)
dc.contributor.authorChing-Yuan Fannen
dc.contributor.author范靜媛zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-13T03:12:58Z-
dc.date.available2007-12-31
dc.date.copyright2006-09-29
dc.date.issued2006
dc.date.submitted2006-08-31
dc.identifier.citation許自齊:大腸直腸及肛門疾病。台北:健康文化事業股份有限公司,2002。
國家衛生研究院:大腸直腸癌診斷與治療之共識。http://www.nhri.org.tw,國家衛生研究院,1998。
廖朝聖:基隆市結腸癌之篩檢成效。基隆市衛生局,基隆市社區闔家歡健康篩檢成果發表會,2001。
Ades AE, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):373-81.
Allison JE, Tekawa IS, Ransom LJ, et al. A compareison of fecal occult-blood tests for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 1996;334:155-9.
Atkin D. Screening for colorectal cancer: Recommendations and rationale:U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Internet journal of Gastroenterology.2003;2:35-49.
Bond JH. Improving the effectiveness of Fecal Occult Blood screening for colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.1999;91:1602-1603.
Célia Berchi, Véronique Bouvier, Jean-Marie Réaud, Guy Launoy. Select this item for deletion Cost-effectiveness analysis of two strategies for mass screening for colorectal cancer in France. Health Economics 2004;13:227-238.
Chen THH, Chiu YH, Luh DL, Yen MF, Wu HM, Chen LS, Tung TH, et al. Community-based multiple screening model: design, implementation, and analysis of 42387 participants Taiwan community-based integrated screening group. Cancer 2004;100(8):1734-1743
Chen CD, Yen MF, Wang WM et al. A case –cohort study for then disease natural history of adenoma-carcinoma and de novo carcinoma and surveillance of colon and rectum after polypectomy: implication for efficacy of colonoscopy. Bri Journal of Cancer, 2003(88):1866-1873.
Cheng TI, Wong JM, Hong CF, et al. Colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic adults: comparison of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood tests. J Formos Med Assoc 2002;101:685-90.
Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Mugford M, Abrams KR. Use of Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods to model cost-of-illness data. Med Decis Making. 2003 Jan-Feb;23(1):38-53.
Detsky AS. Screening for Colon Cancer-Can we afford Colonoscopy? N Engl J Med.2001;345: 607-608.
Duan N.smearing estimate:a non-parametric retransformation method. J Am Sta Assoc.1983;78:605-610
Eddy DM, Nugent FW, Eddy JF, Coller J, Gilbertsen V, Gottlieb LS, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer in a high-risk population: Results of a mathematical model Gastroenterology 1987;92:682-92.
Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS. Cost-effectiveness of screening colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA. 2000:1954-1961
Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, Moss SM, Amar SS, Balfour TW, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472-1477.
Jansen JH. Participation in the first and second round of a mass-screening for colorectal cancer. Soc. Sci. Med. 1984;18:633-636
Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:1467-1471.
Krong O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergarrd O. Randomised study ofscreening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 1996;348:1467-1471.
Lieberman D A. Screening for colorectal cancer. Clinical cornerstone.2001;4:1-7
Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:162–68.28.
Lipscomb J, Ancukiewicz M, Parmigiani G, Hasselblad V, Samsa G, Matchar DB. Predicting the cost of illness: a comparison of alternative models applied to stroke. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2 Suppl):S39-56.
MacRae FA, Hill DJ, St John DJB, Ambikapathy A, and Garner JF. Predicting colon cancer screening behavior for health beliefs. Prev. Med. 1984;13:115-126
Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, Snover DC, Bradley GM, Schuman LM, Ederer F. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(19):1365-71.
Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, Ederer F, Bond JH. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst.1999;91(5):434-437.
Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, Bond JH, Ederer F, Geisser MS, Mongin SJ, et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(22):1603-1607.
Mandelblatt J, Andrews H, Kao R, Wallace R, Kerner J. The late-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer: Demographic and socioeconomic factors Am J Public Health.1996;86:1794-98
Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer S. Meropol NJ. Haller D. Rakowski W. Babb J. Jandorf L. Correlates of colorectal cancer screening compliance and stage of adoption among siblings of individuals with early onset colorectal cancer. Health Psychology. 21(1):3-15, 2002 Jan.
Mulcahy He, Farthing MJ,O’Donoghue DP. Screening for asymptomatic colorectal cancer. BMJ.1997;314:285-291.
Neilson AR and Whynes DK. Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancer. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995;41(3):365-374.
Nixon RM, Thompson SG. Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations. Health Econ. 2005;14(12):1217-29.
O’Leary BA, Olynyk JK, Neville AM, Platell CF. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening: Comparison of community-based flexible sigmoidoscopy with fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2004; 19:38–47.
Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J.Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:96-104.
Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:132–141.
Ransohoff DF, Lang CA, Kuo HS. Colonoscopic Surveillance aften Polypectomy, Considerations of cost effectiveness. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991;114:177-182.
Redaelli A, Cranor CW , Okano GJ, Reese PR. Screening, Prevention and Socioeconomic Costs Associated with the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2003;21(17):1213-1238
Rice DP, Hodgson TA, Sinsheimer P, et al. The economic costs of the health effects of smoking, 1984. The Milbank Quarterly 1986;64:489–547.
Richardson JL, Danley K, Mondrus G.T, Deapen D, Mack T. Adherence to Screening Examinations for Colorectal-Cancer After Diagnosis in a 1st-Degree Relative. Prev. Med.1995;24:166-170
Saito H, Soma Y, Nakajima M, et al. A case-control study evaluating occult blood screening for colorectal cancer with hemoccult test and an immunochemical hemagglutination test. Oncol Rep. 2000 Jul-Aug;7(4):815-9.
Scholefield JH. ABC of colorectal cancer screening. BMJ.2000;321:1004-1006
Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CPJ, et al. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:653-7.
Simon JB, Fletcher RH. Should all people over the age of 50 have regular fecal occult-blood tests? N Engl J Med.1998;338: 1151-1155.
Simoes EJ, Newschaffer CJ, Hagdrup N, Ali-Abarghoui F, Tao X, Mack N, Brownson RC. Predictors of compliance with recommend cervical cancer screening schedule: a population-based study. J Community Health.1999;24:115-130
Sonnenberg A; Delcò F; Inadomi JM. Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy in Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2000;133:573-584
Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling. Stat Med. 2003;22(23):3687-709.
Taiwan Vital Statistics. Available at: http://www.doh.gov.tw/statistics/
Taiwan Cancer Registry Report. Available at: http://crs.cph.ntu.edu.tw/
Thrasher JF, Cummings KM, Michalek AM, Mahoney MC, Moysich KB, Pillittere DM. Colorectal cancer screening among individuals with and without a family history. J Public Health Management &Practice.2002;8:1-9
Towler B, Irwig L, Glasziou P, Kewenter J, Weller D, Silagy C.A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. BMJ.1998;317:559–565
Vernon SW. Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst.1997;89:1406-1422
Vijan S, Hwang EW, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance. Am J Med. 2001;111(8):593-601.
Walker A, Whyneo DK, Chamberlain JD, Hardcasth CD. The cost of screening for colorectal cancer. J Epidemiology and community Health 1991;45:220-224.
Walsh J M, Terdiman JP. Colorectal cancer screening.Clinical application. JAMA.2003;289(10):1297-1302.
Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):461-75.
Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale— Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124:544-60.
Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997;112:594-642.
Wong WM, Lam SK, Cheung KL, et al. Evaluation of an Automated Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test for Colorectal Neoplasia Detection in a Chinese Population. American Cancer Society. 2003:1420-2424
Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:96-104.
Young GP, John JB, Winawer SJ,Rozen P. Choice of fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening: recommendations based on performance characteristics in population studies. A WHO (World Health Organization) and OMED (World Organization for Digestive Endoscopy) Report. Am J G.2002;97(10):2499-2507.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/31433-
dc.description.abstract背景
大腸直腸癌(Colorectal cancer ;CRC)篩檢一般使用傳統化學性糞便潛血法(Fecal Occult Blood Test; FOBT),近年來免疫法興起許多人建議使用,但仍缺乏實證成本效益分析。而且影響篩檢成效因素尚包篩檢參與率及轉介順從率,這些因素會因為不同方法及個人特性的差異而有所不同。此外,成本計算上常會發生成本分布呈現偏態的問題及參數不確定性等問題,這些問題在族群決策分析上均扮演著重要的角色。
研究目的
本研究為隨機成本效益分析,主要目的包括四部份:
1. 利用社區族群篩檢實證資料探討社經人口學、生活型態、個人病史及家族病史等因素與大腸直腸腫瘤產生之相關性。
2. 利用社區族群進行免疫法糞便潛血檢查大腸直腸癌篩檢實證資料以探討人口學、生活型態、個人病史及家族病史如何影響第一次參檢率、再參檢率及轉介順從率。
3. 利用上述社區資料所得到大腸直腸癌個案探討使用二階段模式(two-stage model/hurdle model)調整偏態樣本分佈後,推估有關大腸直腸癌篩檢個案之疾病成本(Cost-of-Illness, COI)。
4. 利用上述1及2所得參數進行決定性及隨機機率模式針對不同間隔免疫法糞便潛血檢查、傳統化學法糞便潛血檢查及大腸直腸鏡檢之族群及個人層次之成本效益分析。
材料與方法
本研究用基隆市整合式篩檢1999-2004年間資料,將大腸直腸腺腫或癌之發生作為依變項,以人口學變項、生活型態、個人病史及家族病史等視為自變項,以Logistic regression function去探討發生大腸直腸腺腫或癌症之危險因子。此外,亦利用相同的自變項及分析方法,將篩檢率及轉介順從率視為依變項,探討其間的關係。最後將上述依個人特性去預到的發生腫瘤的危險性及參檢率、轉介順從率等應用於第四部分成本效益分析。
其次,由於篩檢大腸直腸癌個案成本含有設限及偏態的問題,本論文應用Hurdle model 進行成本的效正。
成本效益分析分別使用決定性模式及隨機模式。在隨機模式中使用貝氏隨機模式將相關參數依貝氏共軛對方式指定進行隨機成本效益分析,以計算增加成本效益比及達到成本效益機率之接受曲線。
主要研究結果
以決定模式作評估,並以社會的觀點來看時,相對於未篩檢,各項篩檢策略均具絕對之優勢,均為成本節約(cost-saving)的方案。所累積的淨效益以每十年一次大腸直腸鏡檢最多,為12.7993人年命,其次為每年一次免疫法的FOBT,可得12.7988人年。若比較各組之增加成本效果比(incremental cost-effectiveness ratio;ICER)時,則每年一次免疫法的FOBT為最佳策略。
同樣的方法進行次族群分析時,除50-59歲女性以外,其它的次族群均以每10年一次的大腸直腸鏡檢為最佳策略。
以個人的觀點評估55歲男性,在不同的大腸直腸的危險因子的影響下,具大腸直腸癌家族病史者之最佳策略為每10年做一次大腸直腸鏡檢;無家族史者則以每年做一次iFOBT為最佳篩檢策略。
當考慮到個人因素異質性,以隨機模式進行評估時以每10年一次的大腸直腸鏡檢具成本效益的機率最高,尤其是針對60-69歲男性而言。
結論
本研究應用隨機成本效益貝氏分析基隆地區以不同間隔提供免疫法糞便潛血以進行大腸直腸癌篩檢時發現,即使考慮二次不確定變異下,每年篩檢一次在族群層次上具成本效益。透過個人對大腸直腸癌的易感受性及參檢率與順從率等影響因素之探討,及修正成本偏態後,可顯示個人層次成本效益之結果,此種方法可應用於未列入國家篩檢政策之疾病。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractBackground
Chemical Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) has been used to establish mass colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program traditionally. However, since Immunochemical FOBT has a higher predicting power, many people start to advocate using it for CRC screening. But so far there are not enough evidences to prove if it is cost-effectiveness. In addition, determinants of the effectiveness of screening also include attendance rate and compliance rate. Both of them will vary among people because of different personal characteristics.
Besides, calculating cost often suffers the problems such as skewed data and uncertainty of parameters. Such problems play important roles for population decision-making.
Research purpose
This study was designed as a probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis with four purposes:
1. To use community population screening data to investigate the association between covariates and tumor detected, those covariates including factors of socio-demographic, life style, personal disease history and family history.
2. To apply community population screening data to investigate the association between the attendance rate and referral rate and the same set of covariates used in 1.
3. To use cost data in community population screening to calculate the cost of illness of CRC. The Hurdle model was used to adjust the skewed cost.
4. To apply those parameters estimated above to establish deterministic and stochastic models, to compare different intervals of immunochemical FOBT screenings, and also for comparison the chemical FOBT and colonoscopy through cost-effectiveness analysis.
Materials and methods
The main data source is Keelung Community-based Integrated Screening (KCIS) data from 1999 to 2004.We investigated the association between colorectal tumor and a set of covariates, including socio-demography, life style, personal disease history and family history, through logistic regression function. Then we used the same method to predict compliance behavior. Finally, incorporating those parameters estimated by above methods into cost-effectiveness analysis.
Besides, in order to account for censored and skewed cost problems in CRC screening, we adopted the Hurdle model to adjust the CRC medical cost.
In terms of the analysis of cost-effectiveness, two approaches were used, namely deterministic and stochastic. In the stochastic model, Bayesian probabilistic estimation was used through Bayesian Conjugate distribution. The comparing indicators were incremental cost –effectiveness ratios (ICER) and acceptability curve.
Results
From a societal viewpoint through deterministic approach, comparing to no-screen, the other screening strategies are dominant and cost-saving. Discounted cumulative effectiveness shows colonoscopy every 10 years is the most-effective one, which will save 12.7993 life years. The following one is to have iFOBT (immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test) annually, which will save 12.7988 life years. Comparing the ICERs of all strategies to no-screen, iFOBT annually is the best strategy.
Processing sub-groups analysis under the same approach, we found that undergoing colonoscopy every 10 years was the best strategy among all subgroups except the subgroup constituted of females aged 50-59.
When evaluating males aged 55 affected by different risk factors of colorectal tumor, for those with family history of CRC, the best strategy is colonoscopy every 10 years. On the other hand, for those without family history of CRC, iFOBT annually is the best strategy.
Taking personal heterogeneity into account, the economical evaluation through probabilistic model showed colonoscopy every 10 years is the best strategy, especially for the subgroup constituted of males aged 60-69.
Conclusion
This study applied Bayesian probabilistic cost-effectiveness to evaluate community-based CRC screening program by iFOBT. Under the consideration about second uncertainty, iFOBT annually shows cost-effectiveness on the population-level. Since we had been incorporated the covariates about personal susceptibility and compliance, and modified the skewed cost data, then we did the personal-level cost- effectiveness analysis. Such method could be applied to national screening policy for those diseases without any screening policy now.
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T03:12:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-95-D90843002-1.pdf: 882892 bytes, checksum: 282e0542b5a1266c725bd1afab598190 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2006
en
dc.description.tableofcontents中文摘要 A-1
英文摘要 A-4
第一章 前言 1
第二章 文獻探討 5
第三章 材料與方法 32
第四章 結果 71
第五章 討論 122
第六章 結論 130
參考文獻 131

表目錄
Table 2.1 Characteristics of cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening 29
Table 3.1 Base case of parameters 65
Table 4.1 Demographic characteristics of target population 80
Table 4.2 Characteristic of KCIS attendee by first attending year 81
Table 4.3 Stage of screening detected cases, by screening round 85
Table 4.4 Logistic regression models for the association between first-round detected colorectal tumors and covariates 86
Table 4.5 Logistic regression models for the association between first-round detected CRC and covariates 88
Table 4.6 No. of attendee, positive finding, and referral by each screening year 90
Table 4.7 Logistic regression models for the association between participation (at least once attendance ) and relevant covariates 91
Table 4.8 Logistic regression models for the association between repeat(at least twice attendance ) and relevant covariates 94
Table 4.9 Logistic regression models for the association between referral and relevant covariates 97
Table 4.10 Mean cost estimated by Hurdle Model 100
Table 4.11 Incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness for the overall population 101

表目錄
Table 4.12 Incremental cost, effectiveness, and ICER compared to no screen, by age and gender 102
Table 4.13 Incremental cost, effectiveness, and ICER compared to iFOBT annually, by age and gender 105
Table 4.14 Incremental cost, effectiveness, and ICER for persons with different risks factors of CRC 107
Table 4.15 Distribution of incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness for the overall population 109
Table 4.16 Probability of cost-effectiveness under critical value of willingness to pay among strategies 110
Table 4.17 Probability of cost-effectiveness under critical value of willingness to pay among strategies for males aged 50-59 111
Table 4.18 Probability of cost-effectiveness under critical value of willingness to pay among strategies for females aged 50-59 112
Table 4.19 Probability of cost-effectiveness under critical value of willingness to pay among strategies for males aged 60-69 113
Table 4.20 Probability of cost-effectiveness under critical value of willingness to pay among strategies for females aged 60-69 114
Table 4.21 Probability of cost-effectiveness under critical value of willingness to pay among strategies for males aged 70-79 115
Table 4.22 Probability of cost-effectiveness under critical value of willingness to pay among strategies for females aged 70-79 116
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.subject隨機性成本效益分析zh_TW
dc.subject大腸直腸癌篩檢zh_TW
dc.subjectprobabilistic cost-effectiveness analysisen
dc.subjectcolorectal cancer screeningen
dc.title應用隨機性成本效益於評估免疫化學糞便潛血法大腸直腸癌篩檢:分析基隆社區闔家歡健康篩檢資料zh_TW
dc.titleProbabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Analysis of Data from Keelung Community-based Integrated Screening(KCIS)en
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear94-2
dc.description.degree博士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee湯澡薰,鄭守夏,張淑惠
dc.subject.keyword大腸直腸癌篩檢,隨機性成本效益分析,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordcolorectal cancer screening,probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis,en
dc.relation.page137
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2006-08-31
dc.contributor.author-college公共衛生學院zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept醫療機構管理研究所zh_TW
顯示於系所單位:健康政策與管理研究所

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-95-1.pdf
  未授權公開取用
862.2 kBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved