辽宁省庄河市胃癌高发区胃癌筛检的卫生经济学评价

目的采用卫生经济学方法评价2001—2003年在辽宁省庄河市胃癌高发区开展的胃癌筛检项目，评估其经济上的可行性，为在胃癌高发区推广两轮筛检法提供依据。方法采用了三种基本的卫生经济学评价方法：成本一效果分析（CEA）、成本一效益分析（CBA）和成本一效用分析（CUA）。CEA以“减少死亡”作为效果进行评估，计算了每减少一例死亡所需投人的直接成本；CBA计算了直接成本、间接成本和直接效益、间接效益，并计算了成本一效益比；CUA评估了筛检措施挽回的质量调整生命年，并计算了每挽回一个质量调整生命年所耗费的直接成本。结果CEA显示，在庄河地区高危人群中每多投人8448元人民币进行筛检治疗就可以减少一例胃癌的死亡；CBA显示，成本为1300621元，产生效益2555979元，成本效益比为1：1，97；CUA显示，筛检共挽回331．44个质量调整寿命年（QALY），每避免一例胃癌死亡增加11．43个QALY。在庄河地区高危人群中每挽回一个QALY花费3802元。结论在胃癌高发区开展两轮胃癌筛检可以挽回更多胃癌患者的生命，是一项经济、社会效益较好，值得推广的一级预防措施。

Study on health economics regarding the screening of gastric cancer in Zhuanghe high risk area

Objective Using the health economics methodology to assess the screening program on gastric cancer in Zhuanghe high risk area for gastric cancer, from 2001 to 2003 and to assess the feasibility on cost of the screening program and to provide a basis for the popularization of the two-time gastric cancer screening methodology. Methods Three major techniques of medical economics namely cost-effective analysis( CEA), cost-benefit analysis ( CBA) and cost-utility analysis ( CUA) were used to assess the screening program. The screening program was composed of two steps: ( 1 ) epidemiological survey and detection of blood pepsinogen; (2) gastroscopy and biopsy of membrane. 'Number of deaths reduced' was used to evaluate the effect during cost-effective analysis while cost-benefit analysis would include the evaluation on the direct cost and indirect cost,direct benefit and indirect benefit as well as the cost-benefit ratio(CBR). During CUA, a questionnaire of WHOQOL-BREF was used to assess the value of the utility while the number of quality adjusted life year(QALY) saved by the screening program was also computed. The direct cost of per saved QALY was also calculated. Results Dada from CEA showed that: investing every 8448 Yuan on screening program and treatment in Zhuanghe high risk area of gastric cancer, one gastric cancer patient could be avoided. Results from CBA showed that: direct cost was 1 260 000 Yuan while indirect cost was 40 621 Yuan with direct benefit as 101 500 Yuan and indirect benefit as 1 540 979 Yuan. The total cost however, was 1 300 621 Yuan with total benefit as 2 555 979 Yuan and CBR was 1:1.97. Data from CUA showed that: a total number of 331.44 QALY was saved, 11.43 QALY was saved by reducing one death, 3802 Yuan per QALY was saved in high risk area of gastric cancer, through this screening program. Conclusion The screening program of gastric cancer appeared to be an economic and society-beneficial measure regarding primary prevention in high risk area of gastric cancer. We also suggested that in the future, evaluations through health economics methodologies on different screening programs be carried out in the same population to solve the problem of comparability.