Cost-effectiveness of annual versus biennial screening mammography for women with high mammographic breast density

Impact of different age ranges on the benefits and harms of the breast cancer screening programme by the EU-TOPIA tool

BACKGROUND

The recommendation for the implementation of mammography screening in women aged 45-49 and 70-74 is conditional with moderate certainty of the evidence. The aim of this study is to simulate the long-term outcomes (2020-50) of using different age range scenarios in the breast cancer screening programme of the Valencia Region (Spain), considering different programme participation rates.

METHODS

Three age range scenarios (S) were simulated with the EU-TOPIA tool, considering a biennial screening interval: S1, 45-69 years old (y); S2, 50-69 y and S3, 45-74 y. Simulations were performed for four participation rates: A = current participation (72.7%), B = +5%, C = +10% and D = +20%. Considered benefits: number (N°) of in situ and invasive breast cancers (BC) (screen vs. clinically detected), N° of BC deaths and % BC mortality reduction. Considered harms: N° of false positives (FP) and % overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

The results showed that BC mortality decreased in all scenarios, being higher in S3A (32.2%) than S1A (30.6%) and S2A (27.9%). Harms decreased in S2A vs. S1A (N° FP: 236 vs. 423, overdiagnosis: 4.9% vs. 5.0%) but also benefits (BC mortality reduction: 27.9% vs. 30.6%, N° screen-detected invasive BC 15/28 vs. 18/25). In S3A vs. S1A, an increase in benefits was observed (BC mortality reduction: 32.2% vs. 30.6%), N° screen-detected in situ B: 5/2 vs. 4/3), but also in harms (N° FP: 460 vs. 423, overdiagnosis: 5.8% vs. 5.0%). Similar trends were observed with increased participation.

CONCLUSIONS

As the age range increases, so does not only the reduction in BC mortality, but also the probability of FP and overdiagnosis.

Healthcare and Cancer Treatment Costs of Breast Screening Outcomes among Higher than Average Risk Women

Concurrent cohorts of 644,932 women aged 50-74 screened annually due to family history, dense breasts or biennially in the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) from 2011-2014 were linked to provincial administrative datasets to determine health system resource utilization and costs. Age-adjusted mean and median total healthcare costs (2018 CAD) and incremental cost differences were calculated by screening outcome and compared by recommendation using regression models. Healthcare costs were compared overall and 1 year after a false positive (n = 46,081) screening mammogram and 2 years after a breast cancer diagnosis (n = 6011). Mean overall healthcare costs by age were highest for those 60-74, particularly with annual screening for family/personal history (CAD 5425; 95% CI: 5308 to 5557) compared to biennial. Although the mean incremental cost difference was higher (23.4%) by CAD 10,235 (95% CI: 6141 to 14,329) per breast cancer for women screened annually for density ≥ 75% compared to biennially, the cost difference was 12.0% lower (-CAD 461; 95% CI: -777 to -114) per false positive result. In contrast, for women screened annually for family/personal history, the mean cost difference per false positive was 19.7% higher than for biennially (CAD 758; 95% CI: 404 to 1118); however, the cost difference per breast cancer was only slightly higher (2.5%) by CAD 1093 (95% CI: -1337 to CAD 3760). Understanding that associated costs of annual compared to biennial screening may balance out by age and outcome can assist decision-making regarding the use of limited healthcare resources.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of risk-based breast cancer screening in Urban Hebei Province

To evaluate the implementations of Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei and to model the cost-effectiveness of a risk-based breast Cancer Screening Program. Women aged 40-74 years were invited to participate the Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei form 2016 to 2020 by completing questionnaires to collect information about breast cancer exposure. Clinical screening including ultrasound and mammography examination were performed. We developed a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY), of a high-risk breast Cancer Screening Program. Nine screening strategies and no screening were included in the study. The age-specific incidence, transition probability data and lifetime treatment costs were derived and adopted from other researches. Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were estimated as the ratios of the additional costs of the screening strategies to the QLYG compared to no screening. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated based on the comparison of a lower cost strategies to the next more expensive and effective strategies after excluding dominated strategies and extendedly dominated strategies. ICERs were used to compare with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analysis was explored the influence factors. A total of 84,029 women completed a risk assessment questionnaire, from which 20,655 high-risk breast cancer females were evaluated, with a high-risk rate of 24.58%. There were 13,392 high-risk females completed the screening program, with participation rate was 64.84%. Undergoing ultrasound, mammography and combined screening, the suspicious positive detection rates were 15.00%, 9.20% and 19.30%, and the positive detection rates were 2.11%, 2.76% and 3.83%, respectively. According to the results by Markov model, at the end of 45 cycle, the early diagnosis rates were 55.53%, 60.68% and 62.47% underwent the annual screening by ultrasound, mammography and combined, the proportion of advanced cancer were 17.20%, 15.85% and 15.36%, respectively. Different screening method and interval yield varied. In the exploration of various scenarios, annual ultrasound screening is the most cost-effective strategy with the ICER of ¥116,176.15/QALY. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are robust. Although it was not cost effective, combined ultrasound and mammography screening was an effective strategy for higher positive detection rate of breast cancer. High-risk population-based breast cancer screening by ultrasound annually was the most cost-effective strategy in Urban Hebei Province.

Using Real-World Data to Determine Health System Costs of Ontario Women Screened for Breast Cancer

Our study was to determine breast cancer screening costs in Ontario, Canada for screenings conducted through a formal (Ontario Breast Screening Program, OBSP) and informal (non-OBSP) screening program using administrative databases. Included women were 49-74 years of age when receiving screening mammograms between 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019. Each woman was followed for a screening episode with screening and diagnostic components, and costs were calculated as an average cost per woman per month in 2021 Canadian dollars. The final cohort of 1,546,386 women screened had a mean age of 59.4 ± 7.1 years and ~87% were screened via OBSP. The average total cost per woman per month was $136 ± $103, $134 ± $103 and $155 ± $104 for the entire, OBSP and non-OBSP cohorts, respectively. This was further disaggregated into the average total screening cost per month, which was $103 ± $8, $100 ± $4 and $117 ± $9 per woman, and the average total diagnostic cost per woman per month at $219 ± $166, $228 ± $165 and $178 ± $159. for the entire, OBSP and non-OBSP cohorts, respectively. These results indicate similar screening costs across the different cohorts, but higher diagnostic costs for the OBSP cohort.

Breast Density and Risk of Interval Cancers: The Effect of Annual Versus Biennial Screening Mammography Policies in Canada

Regular screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality. However, in women with dense breasts, the performance of screening mammography is reduced, which is reflected in higher interval cancer rates (ICR). In Canada, population-based screening mammography programs generally screen women biennially; however, some provinces and territories offer annual mammography for women with dense breast tissue routinely and/or on recommendation of the radiologist. This study compared the ICRs in those breast screening programs with a policy of annual vs. those with biennial screening for women with dense breasts. Among 148,575 women with dense breasts screened between 2008 to 2010, there were 288 invasive interval breast cancers; screening programs with policies offering annual screening for women with dense breasts had fewer interval cancers 63/70,814 (ICR 0.89/1000, 95% CI: 0.67-1.11) compared with those with policies of usual biennial screening 225/77,761 (ICR 1.45 /1000 (annualized), 95% CI: 1.19-1.72) i.e. 63% higher (p = 0.0016). In screening programs where radiologists' screening recommendations were able to be analyzed, a total of 76,103 women were screened, with 87 interval cancers; the ICR was lower for recommended annual (65/69,650, ICR 0.93/1000, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.16) versus recommended biennial screening (22/6,453, ICR 1.70/1000 (annualized), 95%CI: 0.70, 2.71)(p = 0.0605). Screening program policies of annual as compared with biennial screening in women with dense breasts had the greatest impact on reducing interval cancer rates. We review our results in the context of current dense breast notification in Canada.

Telemammography for breast cancer screening: a cost-effective approach in Argentina

OBJECTIVES

Argentina is a low and middle-income country (LMIC) with a highly fragmented healthcare system that conflicts with access to healthcare stated by the country's Universal Health Coverage plan. A tele-mammography network could improve access to breast cancer screening decreasing its mortality. This research aims to conduct an economic evaluation of the implementation of a tele-mammography program to improve access to healthcare.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed to explore the incremental benefit of annual tele-mammography screening for at-risk Argentinian women over 40 years old. A Markov model was developed to simulate annual mammography or tele-mammography screening in two hypothetical population-based cohorts of asymptomatic women. Parameter uncertainty was evaluated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Model structure uncertainty was also explored to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

It was estimated that 31 out of 100 new cases of breast cancer would be detected by mammography and 39/100 by tele-mammography. The model returned an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £26 051/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) which is lower than the WHO-recommended threshold of £26 288/QALY for Argentina. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed the ICER is most sensitive to the uptake and sensitivity of the screening tests. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed tele-mammography is cost-effective in 59% of simulations.

DISCUSSION

Tele-mammography should be considered for adoption as it could improve access to expertise in underserved areas where adherence to screening protocols is poor. Disaggregated data by province is needed for a better- informed policy decision. Telemedicine could also be beneficial in ensuring the continuity of care when health systems are under stress like in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

There is a 59% chance that tele-mammography is cost-effective compared to mammography for at-risk Argentinian women over 40- years old, and should be adopted to improve access to healthcare in underserved areas of the country.

Cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography as a solitary imaging technique in women with dense breasts: an economic evaluation of the prospective TK-Study

Objectives

To evaluate the economic implications of our previous study on the use of MR-mammography (MRM) as a solitary imaging tool in women at intermediate risk due to dense breasts.

Background

In our previous study, we found MRM to be a specific diagnostic tool with high accuracy in patients with dense breasts representing a patient collective at intermediate risk of breast cancer. For this study, we examined whether MRM is an economical alternative.

Methods

For the determination of outcomes and costs, a decision model based on potential diagnostic results of MRM was developed. Quality of life was estimated in a Markov chain model distinguishing between the absence of malignancy, the presence of malignancy, and death. Input parameters were utilized from the prospective TK-Study. To investigate the economic impact of MRM, overall costs in € and outcomes of MRM in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed.

Results

MRM was associated with expected costs of 1650.48 € in the 5-year period and an expected cumulative outcome of 4.69 QALYs. A true positive diagnosis resulted in significantly lower costs and a higher quality of life when compared to the consequences of a false negative result. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, treatment costs had more impact on overall costs than the costs of MRM. The total costs per patient remained below 2500 € in the 5-year period.

Conclusion

MRM, as a solitary imaging tool in patients at intermediate risk due to dense breasts, is economically feasible.

Key Points

• In patients with dense breasts (i.e., patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer), the relative cost of MR-mammography examinations only had moderate impact on overall costs.

• This is due to cost-savings through the application of a sensitive imaging technique resulting in an optimized staging and therapy planning.

• MR-mammography, unaccompanied by mammography or ultrasound in patients with dense breasts, was economically feasible in our analysis.

The cost-effectiveness of mammography-based female breast cancer screening in Canadian populations: a systematic review.. [DOI: 10.1101/2020.01.18.20018044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

Introduction

Mammography-based breast cancer screening is an important aspect of female breast cancer prevention within the Canadian healthcare system. The current literature on female breast cancer screening is largely focused on the health outcomes that result from screening. There is comparatively little data on the cost-effectiveness of the screening. Therefore, this paper sought to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the cost effectiveness of mammography-based breast cancer screening within female Canadian populations.

Materials and methods

A systematic review was performed in the PubMed database to identify all studies published within the last 10 years that addressed breast cancer screening and evaluate cost-effectiveness in a Canadian population.

Results

The search yielded five studies for inclusion, only three of which were applicable to average-risk Canadian women. The benefits of mortality reduction rose approximately linearly with costs, while costs were linearly dependent on the number of lifetime screens per woman. Moreover, triennial screening for average-risk women aged 50-69 years was found to be the most cost-effective in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year. The use of MRI in conjunction with mammography for women with the BRCA 1/2 mutation was found to be cost-effective while annual mammography-based screening for women with dense breasts was found to be cost-ineffective.

Conclusion

In spite of the growing interest to enhance breast cancer screening programs, analyses of the cost-effectiveness of mammography-based screening within Canadian populations are scarcely reported and have heterogeneous methodologies. The existing data suggests that Canada’s current breast cancer screening policy to screen average-risk women aged 50-74, biennially or triennially is cost-effective. These findings could be of interest to health policy makers when making decisions regarding resource allocation; however, further studies in this field are required in order to make stronger recommendations regarding cost-effectiveness.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of mammography from a publicly funded health care system perspective

BACKGROUND

The implementation of population-wide breast cancer screening programs has important budget implications. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various breast cancer screening scenarios in Canada from a publicly funded health care system perspective using an established breast cancer simulation model.

METHODS

Breast cancer incidence, outcomes and total health care system costs (screening, investigation, diagnosis and treatment) for the Canadian health care environment were modelled. The model predicted costs (in 2012 dollars), life-years gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for 11 active screening scenarios that varied by age range for starting and stopping screening (40-74 yr) and frequency of screening (annual, biennial or triennial) relative to no screening. All outcomes were discounted. Marginal and incremental cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted. One-way sensitivity analyses of key parameters assessed robustness.

RESULTS

The lifetime overall costs (undiscounted) to the health care system for annual screening per 1000 women ranged from $7.4 million (for women aged 50-69 yr) to $10.7 million (40-74 yr). For biennial and triennial screening per 1000 women (aged 50-74 yr), costs were less, at about $6.1 million and $5.3 million, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio varied from $36 981/QALY for triennial screening in women aged 50-69 versus no screening to $38 142/QALY for biennial screening in those aged 50-69 and $83 845/QALY for annual screening in those aged 40-74.

INTERPRETATION

Our economic analysis showed that both benefits of mortality reduction and costs rose together linearly with the number of lifetime screens per women. The decision on how to screen is related mainly to willingness to pay and additional considerations such as the number of women recalled after a positive screening result.

Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening - a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions

BACKGROUND

The economic evaluation of stratified breast cancer screening gains momentum, but produces also very diverse results. Systematic reviews so far focused on modeling techniques and epidemiologic assumptions. However, cost and utility parameters received only little attention. This systematic review assesses simulation models for stratified breast cancer screening based on their cost and utility parameters in each phase of breast cancer screening and care.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to compare economic evaluations with simulation models of personalized breast cancer screening. Study quality was assessed using reporting guidelines. Cost and utility inputs were extracted, standardized and structured using a care delivery framework. Studies were then clustered according to their study aim and parameters were compared within the clusters.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were identified within three study clusters. Reporting quality was very diverse in all three clusters. Only two studies in cluster 1, four studies in cluster 2 and one study in cluster 3 scored high in the quality appraisal. In addition to the quality appraisal, this review assessed if the simulation models were consistent in integrating all relevant phases of care, if utility parameters were consistent and methodological sound and if cost were compatible and consistent in the actual parameters used for screening, diagnostic work up and treatment. Of 18 studies, only three studies did not show signs of potential bias.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that a closer look into the cost and utility parameter can help to identify potential bias. Future simulation models should focus on integrating all relevant phases of care, using methodologically sound utility parameters and avoiding inconsistent cost parameters.

Is screening for pancreatic cancer in high-risk groups cost-effective? - Experience from a Danish national screening program

OBJECTIVE

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide, symptoms are few and diffuse, and when the diagnosis has been made only 10-15% would benefit from resection. Surgery is the only potentially curable treatment for pancreatic cancer, and the prognosis seems to improve with early detection. A hereditary component has been identified in 1-10% of the PC cases. To comply with this, screening for PC in high-risk groups with a genetic disposition for PC has been recommended in research settings.

DESIGN

Between January 2006 and February 2014 31 patients with Hereditary pancreatitis or with a disposition of HP and 40 first-degree relatives of patients with Familial Pancreatic Cancer (FPC) were screened for development of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with yearly endoscopic ultrasound. The cost-effectiveness of screening in comparison with no-screening was assessed by the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

By screening the FPC group we identified 2 patients with PDAC who were treated by total pancreatectomy. One patient is still alive, while the other died after 7 months due to cardiac surgery complications. Stratified analysis of patients with HP and FPC provided ICERs of 47,156 US$ vs. 35,493 US$ per life-year and 58,647 US$ vs. 47,867 US$ per QALY. Including only PDAC related death changed the ICER to 31,722 US$ per life-year and 42,128 US$ per QALY. The ICER for patients with FPC was estimated at 28,834 US$ per life-year and 38,785 US$ per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

With a threshold value of 50,000 US$ per QALY this screening program appears to constitute a cost-effective intervention although screening of HP patients appears to be less cost-effective than FPC patients.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society

IMPORTANCE

Breast cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality among US women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced breast cancer morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2003 breast cancer screening guideline for women at average risk for breast cancer.

PROCESS

The ACS commissioned a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related to the screening interval. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Screening mammography in women aged 40 to 69 years is associated with a reduction in breast cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening for women 70 years and older who are in good health. Estimates of the cumulative lifetime risk of false-positive examination results are greater if screening begins at younger ages because of the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger women. The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime risk with confidence. Analysis examining the screening interval demonstrates more favorable tumor characteristics when premenopausal women are screened annually vs biennially. Evidence does not support routine clinical breast examination as a screening method for women at average risk.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation). Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation). Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation). Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation). Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer (qualified recommendation). The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These updated ACS guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. These recommendations should be considered by physicians and women in discussions about breast cancer screening.