Health utility values of breast cancer treatments and the impact of varying quality of life assumptions on cost-effectiveness

In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Four hundred sixty four female patients with breast cancer treated at Erasmus MC, the Netherlands, completed EQ-5D-5L questionnaires from diagnosis throughout their treatment. Average utilities were calculated stratified by age and treatment. These utilities were applied in CEAs analysing 920 breast cancer screening policies differing in eligible ages and screening interval simulated by the MISCAN-Breast microsimulation model, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000. The CEAs included varying sets on normative, breast cancer treatment and screening and follow-up utilities. Efficiency frontiers were compared to assess the impact of the utility sets. The calculated average patient utilities were reduced at breast cancer diagnosis and 6 months after surgery and increased toward normative utilities 12 months after surgery. When using normative utility values of 1 in CEAs, QALYs were overestimated compared to using average gender and age-specific values. Only small differences in QALYs gained were seen when varying treatment utilities in CEAs. The CEAs varying screening and follow-up utilities showed only small changes in QALYs gained and the efficiency frontier. Throughout all variations in utility sets, the optimal strategy remained robust; biennial for ages 40-76 years and occasionally biennial 40-74 years. In sum, we recommend to use gender and age stratified normative utilities in CEAs, and patient-based breast cancer utilities stratified by age and treatment or disease stage. Furthermore, despite varying utilities, the optimal screening scenario seems very robust.

Canadian Healthcare Professionals' Views and Attitudes toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening

Given the controversy over the effectiveness of age-based breast cancer (BC) screening, offering risk-stratified screening to women may be a way to improve patient outcomes with detection of earlier-stage disease. While this approach seems promising, its integration requires the buy-in of many stakeholders. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed Canadian healthcare professionals about their views and attitudes toward a risk-stratified BC screening approach. An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated through Canadian healthcare professional associations between November 2020 and May 2021. Information collected included attitudes toward BC screening recommendations based on individual risk, comfort and perceived readiness related to the possible implementation of this approach. Close to 90% of the 593 respondents agreed with increased frequency and earlier initiation of BC screening for women at high risk. However, only 9% agreed with the idea of not offering BC screening to women at very low risk. Respondents indicated that primary care physicians and nurse practitioners should play a leading role in the risk-stratified BC screening approach. This survey identifies health services and policy enhancements that would be needed to support future implementation of a risk-stratified BC screening approach in healthcare systems in Canada and other countries.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose.

METHODS

Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008-20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST.

RESULTS

Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population.

Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

Development and validation of clinical prediction models for breast cancer incidence and mortality: a protocol for a dual cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in women worldwide. Risk prediction models may be useful to guide risk-reducing interventions (such as pharmacological agents) in women at increased risk or inform screening strategies for early detection methods such as screening.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will use data for women aged 20-90 years between 2000 and 2020 from QResearch linked at the individual level to hospital episodes, cancer registry and death registry data. It will evaluate a set of modelling approaches to predict the risk of developing breast cancer within the next 10 years, the 'combined' risk of developing a breast cancer and then dying from it within 10 years, and the risk of breast cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards, competing risks, random survival forest, deep learning and XGBoost models will be explored. Models will be developed on the entire dataset, with 'apparent' performance reported, and internal-external cross-validation used to assess performance and geographical and temporal transportability (two 10-year time periods). Random effects meta-analysis will pool discrimination and calibration metric estimates from individual geographical units obtained from internal-external cross-validation. We will then externally validate the models in an independent dataset. Evaluation of performance heterogeneity will be conducted throughout, such as exploring performance across ethnic groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was granted by the QResearch scientific committee (reference number REC 18/EM/0400: OX129). The results will be written up for submission to peer-reviewed journals.

Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: a cost‐effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies

Breast cancer screening policies have been designed decades ago, but current screening strategies may not be optimal anymore. Next to that, screening capacity issues may restrict feasibility. This cost‐effectiveness study evaluates an extensive set of breast cancer screening strategies in the Netherlands. Using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis‐Breast (MISCAN‐Breast) model, the cost‐effectiveness of 920 breast cancer screening strategies with varying starting ages (40‐60), stopping ages (64‐84) and intervals (1‐4 years) were simulated. The number of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and additional net costs (in €) per 1000 women were predicted (3.5% discounted) and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare screening scenarios. Sensitivity analyses were performed using different assumptions. In total, 26 strategies covering all four intervals were on the efficiency frontier. Using a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of €20 000/QALY gained, the biennial 40 to 76 screening strategy was optimal. However, this strategy resulted in more overdiagnoses and false positives, and required a high screening capacity. The current strategy in the Netherlands, biennial 50 to 74 years, was dominated. Triennial screening in the age range 44 to 71 (ICER 9364) or 44 to 74 (ICER 11144) resulted in slightly more QALYs gained and lower costs than the current Dutch strategy. Furthermore, these strategies were estimated to require a lower screening capacity. Findings were robust when varying attendance and effectiveness of treatment. In conclusion, switching from biennial to triennial screening while simultaneously lowering the starting age to 44 can increase benefits at lower costs and with a minor increase in harms compared to the current strategy.

The current status of risk-stratified breast screening

Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.

Women's perceptions of PERSPECTIVE: a breast cancer risk stratification e-platform

Background

Breast cancer risk stratification categorizes a woman’s potential risk of developing the disease as near-population, intermediate, or high. In accordance, screening and follow up for breast cancer can readily be tailored following risk assessment. Recent efforts have focussed on developing more accessible means to convey this information to women. This study sought to document the relevance of an informational e-platform developed for these purposes.

Objective

To begin to assess a newly developed breast cancer risk stratification and decision support e-platform called PERSPECTIVE (PErsonalised Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early deteCTIon of breast cancer) among women who do not know their personal breast cancer risk (Phase 1). Changes (pre- and post- e-platform exposure) in knowledge of breast cancer risk and interest in undergoing genetic testing were assessed in addition to perceptions of platform usability and acceptability.

Methods

Using a pre-post design, women (N = 156) of differing literacy and education levels, aged 30 to 60, with no previous breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from the general population and completed self-report e-questionnaires.

Results

Mean e-platform viewing time was 18.67 min (SD 0.65) with the most frequently visited pages being breast cancer-related risk factors and risk assessment. Post-exposure, participants reported  significantly higher breast cancer-related knowledge (p < .001). Increases in knowledge relating to obesity, alcohol, breast density, menstruation, and the risk estimation process remained even when sociodemographic variables age and education were controlled. There were no significant changes in genetic testing interest post-exposure. Mean ratings for e-platform acceptability and usability were high: 26.19 out of 30 (SD 0.157) and 42.85 out of 50 (SD 0.267), respectively.

Conclusions

An informative breast cancer risk stratification e-platform targeting healthy women in the general population can significantly increase knowledge as well as support decisions around breast cancer risk and assessment. Currently underway, Phase 2, called PERSPECTIVE, is seeking further content integration and broader implementation .

A Review of Cancer Screening Recommendations during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening tests are recommended to prevent cancer-associated mortality by detecting precancerous and cancerous lesions in early stages. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the utilization of preventive health care services. While there was a rise in the number of cancer screening tests beginning in late 2020, screenings remained 29%-36% lower than in the pre-pandemic era.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review article was to assist health care providers in identifying approaches for prioritizing patients and increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening during the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We used the scoping review framework to identify articles on PubMed and EBSCO databases. A total of 403 articles were identified, and 23 articles were selected for this review. Literature review ranged from January 1st, 2020 to September 30th, 2021.

RESULTS

The articles included two primary categories of recommendations: (1) risk stratification and triage to prioritize screenings and (2) alternative methods to conduct cancer screenings. Risk stratification and triage recommendations focused on prioritizing high-risk patients with an abnormal or suspicious result on the previous screening test, of certain age group and sex, having personal medical or family history of cancers, currently symptomatic, predisposed to hereditary cancers, and cancer-causing mutations. Other recommended strategies included: identifying areas facing most disparities, creating algorithms and using artificial intelligence to create cancer-risk scores, leveraging in-person visits to assess cancer risk, and providing the option of open access screenings where patients can schedule screenings and can be assigned a priority category by health care staff. Some recommended using telemedicine to categorize patients and determine screening-eligibility for patients with new complaints. Several articles noted the importance of implementing preventive measures such as COVID-19 screening prior to the procedures, maintaining hygiene measures, and social distancing in waiting rooms. Alternative screening methods which do not require an in-person clinic visit and can effectively screen patients for cancers included mailing self-collection sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancers and implementing or expanding mobile screening units.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the COVID-19 pandemic had devastating effects on population health globally, it could be an opportunity to adapt and evolve cancer screening methods. Disruption often creates innovation, and focus on alternative methods for cancer screenings may help reach rural and under-resourced areas after the pandemic has ended.

CLINICALTRIAL

Women's health behaviour change after receiving breast cancer risk estimates with tailored screening and prevention recommendations

Background

The Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study provided women who were eligible for breast cancer screening in Greater Manchester (United Kingdom) with their 10-year risk of breast cancer, i.e., low (≤1.5%), average (1.5–4.99%), moderate (5.-7.99%) or high (≥8%). The aim of this study is to explore which factors were associated with women’s uptake of screening and prevention recommendations. Additionally, we evaluated women’s organisational preferences regarding tailored screening.

Methods

A total of 325 women with a self-reported low (n = 60), average (n = 125), moderate (n = 80), or high (n = 60) risk completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics. For the second part women were asked about uptake of early detection and preventive behaviours after breast cancer risk communication. Additional questions were posed to explore preferences regarding the organisation of risk-stratified screening and prevention. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which factors were associated with uptake of primary and secondary breast cancer preventive behaviours, stratified by breast cancer risk. Organisational preferences are presented using descriptive statistics.

Results

Self-reported breast cancer risk predicted uptake of (a) supplemental screening and breast self-examination, (b) risk-reducing medication and (c) preventive lifestyle behaviours. Further predictors were (a) having a first degree relative with breast cancer, (b) higher age, and (c) higher body mass index (BMI). Women’s organisational preferences for tailored screening emphasised a desire for more intensive screening for women at increased risk by further shortening the screening interval and moving the starting age forward.

Conclusions

Breast cancer risk communication predicts the uptake of key tailored primary and secondary preventive behaviours. Effective communication of breast cancer risk information is essential to optimise the population-wide impact of tailored screening.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09174-3.

UK Women's Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study

Simple Summary

Risk-based breast screening will involve tailoring the amount of screening to women’s level of risk. Therefore, women at high-risk may be offered more frequent screening and over a longer period of time than those at low risk for whom less screening may be recommended. As this will involve considerable changes to the NHS Breast Screening Programme, it is important to explore what women in the UK think and feel about this approach. Analysis of in-depth interviews revealed that some women would find both high and low-risk screening options acceptable whereas others were resistant to the prospect of reduced screening if they were assessed as low-risk. We also found that the idea of risk-based screening had little influence on the attitudes of women who were already sceptical about breast screening. These findings highlight the communication challenges that will be faced by those introducing risk-based screening and suggest a need for tailored support and advice.

Abstract

Any introduction of risk-stratification within the NHS Breast Screening Programme needs to be considered acceptable by women. We conducted interviews to explore women’s attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analysed using Framework Analysis. Women expressed positive intentions for personal risk assessment and willingness to receive risk feedback to provide reassurance and certainty. Women responded to risk-stratified screening scenarios in three ways: ‘Overall acceptors’ considered both high- and low-risk options acceptable as a reasonable allocation of resources to clinical need, yet acceptability was subject to specified conditions including accuracy of risk estimates and availability of support throughout the screening pathway. Others who thought ‘more is better’ only supported high-risk scenarios where increased screening was proposed. ‘Screening sceptics’ found low-risk scenarios more aligned to their screening values than high-risk screening options. Consideration of screening recommendations for other risk groups had more influence on women’s responses than screening-related harms. These findings demonstrate high, but not universal, acceptability. Support and guidance, tailored to screening values and preferences, may be required by women at all levels of risk.

Potential of polygenic risk scores for improving population estimates of women's breast cancer genetic risks

PURPOSE

Breast cancer risk has conventionally been assessed using family history (FH) and rare high/moderate penetrance pathogenic variants (PVs), notably in BRCA1/2, and more recently PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. In addition to these PVs, it is now possible to use increasingly predictive polygenic risk scores (PRS) as well. The comparative population-level predictive capability of these three different indicators of genetic risk for risk stratification is, however, unknown.

METHODS

The Canadian heritable breast cancer risk distribution was estimated using a novel genetic mixing model (GMM). A realistically representative sample of women was synthesized based on empirically observed demographic patterns for appropriately correlated family history, inheritance of rare PVs, PRS, and residual risk from an unknown polygenotype. Risk assessment was simulated using the BOADICEA risk algorithm for 10-year absolute breast cancer incidence, and compared to heritable risks as if the overall polygene, including its measured PRS component, and PV risks were fully known.

RESULTS

Generally, the PRS was most predictive for identifying women at high risk, while family history was the weakest. Only the PRS identified any women at low risk of breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

PRS information would be the most important advance in enabling effective risk stratification for population-wide breast cancer screening.

Effects of cancer screening restart strategies after COVID-19 disruption

BACKGROUND

Many breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the effects of five restart strategies after the disruption on required screening capacity and cancer burden.

METHODS

Microsimulation models simulated five restart strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. The models estimated required screening capacity, cancer incidence, and cancer-specific mortality after a disruption of 6 months. The restart strategies varied in whether screens were caught up or not and, if so, immediately or delayed, and whether the upper age limit was increased.

RESULTS

The disruption in screening programmes without catch-up of missed screens led to an increase of 2.0, 0.3, and 2.5 cancer deaths per 100 000 individuals in 10 years in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Immediately catching-up missed screens minimised the impact of the disruption but required a surge in screening capacity. Delaying screening, but still offering all screening rounds gave the best balance between required capacity, incidence, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies with the smallest loss in health effects were also the most burdensome for the screening organisations. Which strategy is preferred depends on the organisation and available capacity in a country.

Cost-effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening: A systematic review

To analyse published evidence on the economic evaluation of risk-based screening (RBS), a full systematic literature review was conducted. After a quality appraisal, we compared the cost-effectiveness of risk-based strategies (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk) with no screening and age-based screening. Studies were also analysed for modelling, risk stratification methods, input parameters, data sources and harms and benefits. The 10 modelling papers analysed were based on screening performance of film-based mammography (FBM) (three); digital mammography (DM) and FBM (two); DM alone (three); DM, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (one) and DM and US (one). Seven studies did not include the cost of risk-stratification, and one did not consider the cost of diagnosis. Disutility was incorporated in only six studies (one for screening and five for diagnosis). None of the studies reported disutility of risk-stratification (being considered as high-risk). Risk-stratification methods varied from only breast density (BD) to the combination of familial risk, genetic susceptibility, lifestyle, previous biopsies, Jewish ancestry and reproductive history. Less or no screening in low-risk women and more frequent mammography screening in high-risk women was more cost-effective compared to no screening and age-based screening. High-risk women screened annually yielded a higher mortality rate reduction and more quality-adjusted life years at the expense of higher cost and false positives. RBS can be cost effective compared to the alternatives. However, heterogeneity among risk-stratification methods, input parameters, and weaknesses in the methodologies hinder the derivation of robust conclusions. Therefore, further studies are warranted to assess newer technologies and innovative risk-stratification methods.