ObjectiveTo systematically review the status of economic evaluation of liver cancer screening in China, so as to provide reference for further studies.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were searched to collect economic evaluation studies of liver cancer screening in China from inception to December, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and conducted descriptive analysis of basic characteristics, methods of economic evaluation and main results as well as quality and uniformity of reporting.ResultsA total of 5 studies were included. Among them, the starting age of screening were found to be 35 to 45 years old; α-fetoprotein (AFP) testing and ultrasound examination combined procedure and screening interval of every 6 months were mostly evaluated. The quality of the 5 studies was satisfactory, and the uniformity of reporting was relatively acceptable, with a median score of 78% (range: 60% ~ 78%). Two population-based studies reported cost per liver cancer detected (44 thousand and 575 thousand yuan). Three studies reported cost-effectiveness ratio(CER) based on life year saved (LYS) and quality adjusted life year (QALY). Among these results, only 1 study from mainland China reported CER based on LYS (1 775 yuan), and the calculated ratio of CER to local GDP per capita was estimated as 0.1, while 2 studies from Taiwan province reported 4 CERs, and the ratios of CER to local GDP per capita ranged from 1.0 to 2.2.ConclusionsInformation from liver cancer endemic areas such as Taiwan province indicates promising cost-effectiveness to conduct liver cancer screening in local general population, while data from mainland suggests that conducting liver cancer screening combining AFP and ultrasound in high-risk population will be cost-effective, however only supported by 1 regional study. This needs to be verified by further economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials or cohort studies as well as health economic evaluations.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of liver cancer screening techniques to inform screening intervention and early diagnosis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM, VIP databases to collect relevant diagnostic accuracy studies of screening technologies for liver cancer from January 1980 to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed by using Meta-Disc 1.4 software.ResultsA total of 54 publications with 47 728 individuals were included. In terms of pooled sensitivity from the meta-analysis, it was estimated as 0.71 (95%CI 0.70 to 0.72), 0.57 (95%CI 0.56 to 0.59) and 0.43 (95%CI 0.41 to 0.45); the pooled specificity was estimated as 0.92 (95%CI 0.92 to 0.93), 0.95 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.96) and 0.95 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.96); the pooled positive likelihood ratio was 5.65 (95%CI 4.37 to 7.30), 13.24(95%CI 4.25 to 41.22) and 11.39 (95%CI 4.01 to 32.35); the pooled negative likelihood ratio was 0.35 (95%CI 0.31 to 0.39), 0.38 (95%CI 0.29 to 0.52) and 0.49 (95%CI 0.39 to 0.62); the diagnosis odds ratio was 17.23 (95%CI 12.26 to 24.20), 33.79 (95%CI 12.65 to 90.24) and 24.41(95%CI 9.23 to 64.53) for AFP alone with cut-off of 20, 200 and 400 ng/mL, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnosis odds ratio were 0.65 (95%CI 0.62 to 0.69), 0.97 (95%CI 0.97 to 0.97), 16.48 (95%CI 9.55 to 28.42), 0.27 (95%CI 0.18 to 0.42) and 64.54 (95%CI 30.16 to 138.11) for ultrasound examination alone. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnosis odds ratio were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.98), 0.96 (95%CI 0.96 to 0.96), 10.76 (95%CI 2.62 to 44.27), 0.07 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.22) and 160.59 (95%CI 31.61 to 816.03) for the combined strategy.ConclusionFor liver cancer screening technologies, the overall accuracy of serum AFP test alone is the optimum at cut-off of 20 ng/mL, and the sensitivity increased substantially when combined with ultrasound examination.