Modelling the future costs of breast screening

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.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Brief Interventions to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Brief interventions (BIs) delivered in primary care have shown potential to increase physical activity levels and may be cost-effective, at least in the short-term, when compared with usual care. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on their longer term costs and health benefits.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of BIs to promote physical activity in primary care and to guide future research priorities using value of information analysis.

METHODS

A decision model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of three classes of BIs that have been used, or could be used, to promote physical activity in primary care: 1) pedometer interventions, 2) advice/counseling on physical activity, and (3) action planning interventions. Published risk equations and data from the available literature or routine data sources were used to inform model parameters. Uncertainty was investigated with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis was conducted to estimate the value of undertaking further research.

RESULTS

In the base-case, pedometer interventions yielded the highest expected net benefit at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There was, however, a great deal of decision uncertainty: the expected value of perfect information surrounding the decision problem for the National Health Service Health Check population was estimated at £1.85 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that the use of pedometer BIs is the most cost-effective strategy to promote physical activity in primary care, and that there is potential value in further research into the cost-effectiveness of brief (i.e., <30 minutes) and very brief (i.e., <5 minutes) pedometer interventions in this setting.

Evaluation of a Stratified National Breast Screening Program in the United Kingdom: An Early Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify the incremental costs and consequences of stratified national breast screening programs (stratified NBSPs) and drivers of relative cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model (discrete event simulation) was conceptualized to represent four stratified NBSPs (risk 1, risk 2, masking [supplemental screening for women with higher breast density], and masking and risk 1) compared with the current UK NBSP and no screening. The model assumed a lifetime horizon, the health service perspective to identify costs (£, 2015), and measured consequences in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Multiple data sources were used: systematic reviews of effectiveness and utility, published studies reporting costs, and cohort studies embedded in existing NBSPs. Model parameter uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis, supported by probabilistic sensitivity analysis, suggested that the risk stratified NBSPs (risk 1 and risk-2) were relatively cost-effective when compared with the current UK NBSP, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £16,689 per QALY and £23,924 per QALY, respectively. Stratified NBSP including masking approaches (supplemental screening for women with higher breast density) was not a cost-effective alternative, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £212,947 per QALY (masking) and £75,254 per QALY (risk 1 and masking). When compared with no screening, all stratified NBSPs could be considered cost-effective. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were discount rate, natural history model parameters, mammographic sensitivity, and biopsy rates for recalled cases. A key assumption was that the risk model used in the stratification process was perfectly calibrated to the population.

CONCLUSIONS

This early model-based cost-effectiveness analysis provides indicative evidence for decision makers to understand the key drivers of costs and QALYs for exemplar stratified NBSP.

[Analysis of Cost-effectiveness of screening for breast cancer with conventional mammography, digital and magnetic resonance imaging]

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in screening for breast cancer. The use of conventional mammography, digital and magnetic resonance imaging were compared with natural disease history as a baseline. A Markov model projected breast cancer in a group of 100,000 women for a 30 year period, with screening every two years. Four distinct scenarios were modeled: (1) the natural history of breast cancer, as a baseline, (2) conventional film mammography, (3) digital mammography and (4) magnetic resonance imaging. The costs of the scenarios modeled ranged from R$ 194.216,68 for natural history, to R$ 48.614.338,31, for screening with magnetic resonance imaging. The difference in effectiveness between the interventions ranged from 300 to 78.000 years of life gained in the cohort. The ratio of incremental cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per life-year gains, conventional mammographic screening has produced an extra year for R$ 13.573,07. The ICER of magnetic resonance imaging was R$ 2.904.328,88, compared to no screening. In conclusion, it is more cost-effective to perform the screening with conventional mammography than other technological interventions.

A rapid-response economic evaluation of the UK NHS Cancer Reform Strategy breast cancer screening program extension via a plausible bounds approach

OBJECTIVES

The 2007 National Health Service Cancer Reform Strategy includes a proposed extension of the UK breast screening program to women aged 47 to 49 years. The aim of this study is to undertake a preliminary assessment of this proposal to identify the key factors determining its cost-effectiveness and to determine whether there is sufficient uncertainty that requires more thorough analyses.

METHODS

An economic model was constructed. For simplicity, the health impact of screening was estimated by calculating the lives saved through shifts in prognostic group. A "plausible bounds" approach was used to derive distributions for model parameters for probabilistic sensitivity analysis. UK data were used to populate the model.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness of the extension is estimated to be pound27,400 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) with a 29% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of pound20,000 per QALY. The deterministic estimate of benefit becomes negative if the anxiety due to a false-positive result is set at 0.028 QALYs. Including a small positive benefit from a negative screen has a dramatic impact on the cost-effectiveness of screening. The impact of other factors appears less marked.

CONCLUSIONS

Because the vast majority of women aged 47 to 49 years will test negative when screened for breast cancer and most of those who test positive will actually be free of the disease, the psychological impacts of screening are likely to drive cost-effectiveness for this age group. Therefore, a research priority should be to better understand and quantify these effects.

The use of paclitaxel in the management of early stage breast cancer

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel in the management of early stage breast cancer based upon the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The scope was not clearly defined in the manufacturer’s submission. Two of the three clinical trials included in the submission report showed that the addition of four cycles of paclitaxel to four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC-P) resulted in modest improvements in the two end points of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The third unpublished study evaluating four cycles of AC followed by paclitaxel or docetaxel in breast cancer did not show any statistically significant differences in DFS or OS between any group. The economic evaluation of paclitaxel for adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer was based on two of the three trials submitted as clinical evidence and used a probabilistic Markov state-transition model. The measure of health benefit was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the model included direct costs using a UK NHS perspective. The primary analysis compared AC-P with four cycles of AC. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for this comparison was £4726 per additional QALY for AC-P compared with four cycles of AC. The submission did not include a systematic review for clinical or cost-effectiveness evidence. As a result, potentially relevant trials and previously published studies were omitted. The main comparator used did not represent standard care in the UK NHS and a large number of relevant comparators were omitted, including docetaxel. The manufacturer did not consider potentially important patient subgroups defined by baseline risk, and the cost-effectiveness result in the average overall patient population may conceal important variation between subgroups. Overall, although the economic model may have indicated that the addition of four cycles of paclitaxel to four cycles of AC may be cost-effective compared with providing four cycles of AC only, this comparison is not informative to current clinical practice in the UK NHS. In the context of this review it is not possible for the ERG to predict the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel compared with more appropriate, and potentially more effective, relevant comparators. The guidance issued by NICE in July 2006 as a result of the STA states that paclitaxel is not recommended as an option for the adjuvant treatment of women with early node-positive breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1–7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35–49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was £28 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to £11 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and £15 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.