Cost-effectiveness of the Norwegian breast cancer screening program

Impacts of the Egyptian national screening and treatment programme for viral hepatitis C: A cost-effectiveness model

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Egypt used to have one of the highest prevalences of HCV infection worldwide. The Egyptian Ministry of Health launched a national campaign for the detection and management of HCV to reduce its burden. This study aims to carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the costs and benefits of the Egyptian national screening and treatment programme.

METHODS

A disease burden and economic impact model was populated with the Egyptian national screening and treatment programme data to assess direct medical costs, health effects measured in disability-adjusted life years and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The scenario was compared to a historical base case, which assumed that no programme had been conducted.

RESULTS

Total number of viremic cases is expected to decrease in 2030 by 86% under the national screening and treatment programme, versus by 41% under the historical base case. Annual discounted direct medical costs are expected to decrease from $178 million in 2018 to $81 million by 2030 under the historical base case, while annual direct medical costs are estimated to have peaked in 2019 at $312 million before declining to $55 million by 2030 under the national screening and treatment programme. Under the programme, annual disability-adjusted life years are expected to decline to 127 647 by 2030, leading to 883 333 cumulative disability-adjusted life years averted over 2018-2030.

CONCLUSIONS

The national screening and treatment programme is highly cost-effective by the year 2021, cost-saving by 2029 and expected to save about $35 million in direct costs and $4705 million in indirect costs by 2030.

Relative Efficiency of Radiation Treatment Centers: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis

This study determines the relative efficiencies of a number of cancer treatment centers in Ontario, taking into account the differences among them so that their performances can be compared against the provincial targets. These differences can be in physical and financial resources, and patient demographics. An analytical framework is developed based on a three-step data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to build efficiency metrics for planning, delivery, and quality of treatment at each center. Regression analysis is used to explain the efficiency metrics and demonstrates how these findings can inform continuous improvement efforts.

Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies

OBJECTIVES

Benefit and cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening are still matters of controversy. Risk-adapted strategies are proposed to improve its benefit-harm and cost-benefit relations. Our objective was to perform a systematic review on economic breast cancer models evaluating primary and secondary prevention strategies in the European health care setting, with specific focus on model results, model characteristics, and risk-adapted strategies.

METHODS

Literature databases were systematically searched for economic breast cancer models evaluating the cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention strategies in the European health care context. Characteristics, methodological details and results of the identified studies are reported in evidence tables. Economic model outputs are standardized to achieve comparable cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Thirty-two economic evaluations of breast cancer screening and seven evaluations of primary breast cancer prevention were included. Five screening studies and none of the prevention studies considered risk-adapted strategies. Studies differed in methodologic features. Only about half of the screening studies modeled overdiagnosis-related harms, most often indirectly and without reporting their magnitude. All models predict gains in life expectancy and/or quality-adjusted life expectancy at acceptable costs. However, risk-adapted screening was shown to be more effective and efficient than conventional screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic models suggest that breast cancer screening and prevention are cost effective in the European setting. All screening models predict gains in life expectancy, which has not yet been confirmed by trials. European models evaluating risk-adapted screening strategies are rare, but suggest that risk-adapted screening is more effective and efficient than conventional screening.

Extending Age Ranges in Breast Cancer Screening in Four European Countries: Model Estimations of Harm-to-Benefit Ratios

Simple Summary

Breast cancer screening causes harms and benefits. The balance between the two varies by age. By applying microsimulation modelling, we compared several age ranges of screening in four European countries (the Netherlands, Finland, Italy and Slovenia) and evaluated the respective harm-to-benefit ratios. In all countries, adding screening between the ages 45 and 49 or 70 and 74 resulted in more life-years gained and more breast cancer deaths averted, but at the expense of increases in harms. Adapting the age range of breast cancer screening is an option to improve harm-to-benefit ratios in all four countries. The prioritization of considered harms and benefits affects the interpretation of results.

Abstract

The main benefit of breast cancer (BC) screening is a reduction in mortality from BC. However, screening also causes harms such as overdiagnosis and false-positive results. The balance between benefits and harms varies by age. This study aims to assess how harm-to-benefit ratios of BC screening vary by age in the Netherlands, Finland, Italy and Slovenia. Using microsimulation models, we simulated biennial screening with 100% attendance at varying ages for cohorts of women followed over a lifetime. The number of overdiagnoses, false-positive diagnoses, BC deaths averted and life-years gained (LYG) were calculated per 1000 women. We compared four strategies (50–69, 45–69, 45–74 and 50–74) by calculating four harm-to-benefit ratios, respectively. Compared to the reference strategy 50–69, screening women at 45–74 or 50–74 years would be less beneficial in any of the four countries than screening women at 45–69, which would result in relatively fewer overdiagnoses per death averted or LYG. At the same time, false-positive results per death averted would increase substantially. Adapting the age range of BC screening is an option to improve harm-to-benefit ratios in all four countries. Prioritization of considered harms and benefits affects the interpretation of results.

Disability-Adjusted Life Years Averted Versus Quality-Adjusted Life Years Gained: A Model Analysis for Breast Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the impact of mammography-based screening on the quality of life, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained can be used. We aimed to assess whether the use of DALYs averted or QALYs gained will lead to different cost-effective screening strategies.

METHODS

Using the microsimulation model MISCAN, we simulated different breast cancer screening strategies varying in starting age (starting at 45, 47, and 50 years), stopping age (stopping at 69, 72, and 74 years), and frequency (annual [A], biennial [B], combination of both [A + B], and triennial [T]). In total, we defined 24 different breast cancer screening strategies, including no screening as a reference strategy. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and compared which strategies were on the efficiency frontiers for DALYs and QALYs.

RESULTS

Breast cancer screening averted between 46.00 and 105.58 DALYs and gained between 28.69 and 64.50 QALYs per 1000 women. For DALYs there were 5 strategies on the efficiency frontier (T50-69, T50-74, T45-74, B45-74, and A45-74). The same strategies plus one (B45-72) were on the efficiency frontier for QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

Using DALYs averted instead of QALYs gained to assess the effects on quality of life from breast cancer screening in the Dutch population yields differences in ICERs, but almost the same strategies were on the efficiency frontiers. Whether the choice in outcome measure leads to a difference in optimal policy depends on the cost-effectiveness threshold.

National health screening may reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among the elderly

OBJECTIVES

Since 2007, the Korean government has provided a free health screening to the elderly starting at the age of 66 years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between this general health screening and the incidences of stroke and myocardial infarction and mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

The study design used in this study is a retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

The study was conducted using the universe of insurance claims data of Korea and followed a cohort of individuals aged 66 years in 2009 from 2006 through 2016 (n = 354,194). We assessed the association between receipt of the national health screening and health outcomes using propensity matching and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

We found that the receipt of the national health screening was associated with a reduction in negative health outcomes. The hazard ratio for stroke was 0.89 (P < 0.001), 0.88 (P < 0.001) for myocardial infarction and 0.58 for death (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Korea's national health screening was associated with reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the elderly.

Quality-of-life effects of screening mammography in Norway

Mammography screening may save women from dying of breast cancer, although it has not been shown to reduce all-cause mortality. Screening also leads to overdiagnosis and many false positive mammograms aggravating women's quality-of-life. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) analyses of mammography screening have so far, calculated life years gained assuming that all prevented breast cancer deaths translate into a reduction in all-cause mortality. We calculated net QALYs in two hypothesized cohorts of 100,000 Norwegian women; one screened biennially from age 50 to 69 years and one not screened. We followed both cohorts to age 85 years. We used EQ-5D and an alternative equity weighted QALY instrument to estimate utility losses. In the screening cohort, we assumed 20% false positive tests during screening, different levels of overdiagnosis (20-75%) and different levels of breast cancer mortality reduction (10-30%). We assumed that reductions in breast cancer mortality only to a limited extent (20, 50 or 80%), resulted in reductions in all-cause mortality. We calculated both undiscounted and discounted (4%) QALYs. Assuming that 50% of the reduction in breast cancer mortality translated to a reduction in all-cause mortality and using estimated levels of benefits and harms in modern screening programs (50-75% overdiagnosis and 10% reduction in breast cancer mortality), undiscounted equity weighted QALY loss varied from 437 to 875 per 100,000 women. Using the levels of benefit and harms as reported in 30-40 years old randomized trials (30% overdiagnosis and 15% reduction in breast cancer mortality), undiscounted equity weighted QALY gain was 535 per 100,000. Net QALY in modern mammography screening in Norway is negative. Results could also be representative for Sweden, Denmark, UK and the US.

The Association between Cancer Screening and Cancer History among Korean Adults: The 2010–2012 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

Background

Cancer survivors are at a higher risk of primary cancer recurrence and development of second primary cancer. In both cases, early disease detection is crucial. This cross-sectional study assessed cancer screening participation rates according to cancer history.

Methods

Data were obtained from the 2010–2012 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 12,500 participants. Of these, 624 cancer survivors were enrolled in this study. Sampling weights were applied to maintain the representativeness of the Korean adult population.

Results

Overall 2-year cancer screening rates prior to the survey in male and female cancer survivors were 59.9% and 73.7%, respectively, while opportunistic cancer screening rates were 33.5% and 52.1%, respectively. The odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of the overall cancer screening among the cancer survivors, compared to others, were 1.16 (0.79–1.72) in male and 1.78 (1.20–2.63) in female participants, after the adjustment for confounding variables. The odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for opportunistic cancer screening and National Cancer Screening Program among cancer survivors were 1.56 (1.07–2.27) and 0.80 (0.53–1.21) in males and 2.05 (1.46–2.88) and 0.66 (0.46–0.95) in females.

Conclusion

Female cancer survivors showed a higher rate of overall and opportunistic cancer screening than did the male cancer survivors. Further efforts are required to improve cancer screening among male cancer survivors.

Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures

Policy decisions regarding breast cancer screening and treatment programmes may be misplaced unless the decision process includes the appropriate utilities and disutilities of mammography screening and its sequelae. The objectives of this study were to critically review how economic evaluations have valued the health states associated with breast cancer screening, and appraise the primary evidence informing health state utility values (cardinal measures of quality of life). A systematic review was conducted up to September 2018 of studies that elicited or used utilities relevant to mammography screening. The methods used to elicit utilities and the quality of the reported values were tabulated and analysed narratively. 40 economic evaluations of breast cancer screening programmes and 10 primary studies measuring utilities for health states associated with mammography were reviewed in full. The economic evaluations made different assumptions about the measures used, duration applied and the sequalae included in each health state. 22 evaluations referenced utilities based on assumptions or used measures that were not methodologically appropriate. There was significant heterogeneity in the utilities generated by the 10 primary studies, including the methods and population used to derive them. No study asked women to explicitly consider the risk of overdiagnosis when valuing the health states described. Utilities informing breast screening policy are restricted in their ability to reflect the full benefits and harms. Evaluating the true cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening will remain problematic, unless the methodological challenges associated with valuing the disutilities of screening are adequately addressed.

Assessing the value of screening tools: reviewing the challenges and opportunities of cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Screening is an important part of preventive medicine. Ideally, screening tools identify patients early enough to provide treatment and avoid or reduce symptoms and other consequences, improving health outcomes of the population at a reasonable cost. Cost-effectiveness analyses combine the expected benefits and costs of interventions and can be used to assess the value of screening tools.

Objective

This review seeks to evaluate the latest cost-effectiveness analyses on screening tools to identify the current challenges encountered and potential methods to overcome them.

Methods

A systematic literature search of EMBASE and MEDLINE identified cost-effectiveness analyses of screening tools published in 2017. Data extracted included the population, disease, screening tools, comparators, perspective, time horizon, discounting, and outcomes. Challenges and methodological suggestions were narratively synthesized.

Results

Four key categories were identified: screening pathways, pre-symptomatic disease, treatment outcomes, and non-health benefits. Not all studies included treatment outcomes; 15 studies (22%) did not include treatment following diagnosis. Quality-adjusted life years were used by 35 (51.4%) as the main outcome. Studies that undertook a societal perspective did not report non-health benefits and costs consistently. Two important challenges identified were (i) estimating the sojourn time, i.e., the time between when a patient can be identified by screening tests and when they would have been identified due to symptoms, and (ii) estimating the treatment effect and progression rates of patients identified early.

Conclusions

To capture all important costs and outcomes of a screening tool, screening pathways should be modeled including patient treatment. Also, false positive and false negative patients are likely to have important costs and consequences and should be included in the analysis. As these patients are difficult to identify in regular data sources, common treatment patterns should be used to determine how these patients are likely to be treated. It is important that assumptions are clearly indicated and that the consequences of these assumptions are tested in sensitivity analyses, particularly the assumptions of independence of consecutive tests and the level of patient and provider compliance to guidelines and sojourn times. As data is rarely available regarding the progression of undiagnosed patients, extrapolation from diagnosed patients may be necessary.