Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in males and second in females, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Currently, about 60-70% of diagnosed cases in symptomatic patients are detected at an advanced stage of disease. Earlier stage detection through the use of screening strategies would allow for better outcomes in terms of reducing the disease burden. Areas covered: The aim of this paper is to review the current published evidence from literature which assesses the performance and effectiveness of different screening tests for the early detection of CRC. Expert commentary: Adequate screening strategies can reduce CRC incidence and mortality. In the last few decades, several tests have been proposed for CRC screening. To date, there is still insufficient evidence to identify which approach is definitively superior, and no screening strategy for CRC can therefore be defined as universally ideal. The best strategy would be the one that can be economically viable and to which the patient can adhere best to over time. The latest guidelines suggest colonoscopy every 10 years or annual fecal immuno-chemical test (FIT) for people with normal risk, while for individuals with high risk or hereditary syndromes specific recommendations are provided.

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir (SOF)-based triple therapy (TT) compared with boceprevir (BOC)- and telaprevir (TVR)-based TT in untreated genotype 1 (G1) chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients discriminated according to IL28B genotype, severity of liver fibrosis, and G1 subtype. The available published literature provided the data source. The target population was made up of untreated Caucasian patients, aged 50 years, with G1CHC and these were evaluated over a lifetime horizon by Markov model. The study was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Outcomes included discounted costs (in euros at 2013 value), life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost of SOF was assumed to be €3,500 per week, i.e., the price generating a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per LYG compared with TVR in the entire population of untreated G1 patients. The robustness of the results was evaluated by one-way deterministic and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses. SOF was cost-effective compared with BOC in all strategies with the exception of cirrhosis and IL28B CC patients. In comparison with TVR-based strategies, SOF was cost-effective in IL28B CT/TT (ICER per LYG €22,229) and G1a (€19,359) patients, not cost-effective in IL28B CC (€45,330), fibrosis F0-F3 (€26,444), and in cirrhosis (€34,906) patients, and dominated in G1b patients. The models were sensitive to SOF prices and to likelihood of sustained virological response. Conclusion: In untreated G1 CHC patients, SOF-based TT may be a cost-effective alternative to first-generation protease inhibitors depending on pricing. The cost-effectiveness of SOF improved in IL28B CT/TT and G1a patients. SOF was dominated by TVR in G1b patients even if, in clinical practice, this issue could be counterbalanced by the good tolerability profile of SOF and by the shorter treatment duration. (Hepatology 2014;59:1692–1705)

Genetic background in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A comprehensive review