The OncoSim-Breast Cancer Microsimulation Model

Examining breast cancer screening recommendations in Canada: The projected resource impact of screening among women aged 40-49

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the resource use of revising breast cancer screening guidelines to include average-risk women aged 40-49 years across Canada from 2024 to 2043 using a validated microsimulation model.

SETTING

OncoSim-Breast microsimulation platform was used to simulate the entire Canadian population in 2015-2051.

METHODS

We compared resource use between current screening guidelines (biennial screening ages 50-74) and alternate screening scenarios, which included annual and biennial screening for ages 40-49 and ages 45-49, followed by biennial screening ages 50-74. We estimated absolute and relative differences in number of screens, abnormal screening recalls without cancer, total and negative biopsies, screen-detected cancers, stage of diagnosis, and breast cancer deaths averted.

RESULTS

Compared with current guidelines in Canada, the most intensive screening scenario (annual screening ages 40-49) would result in 13.3% increases in the number of screens and abnormal screening recalls without cancer whereas the least intensive scenario (biennial screening ages 45-49) would result in a 3.4% increase in number of screens and 3.8% increase in number of abnormal screening recalls without cancer. More intensive screening would be associated with fewer stage II, III, and IV diagnoses, and more breast cancer deaths averted.

CONCLUSIONS

Revising breast cancer screening in Canada to include average-risk women aged 40-49 would detect cancers earlier leading to fewer breast cancer deaths. To realize this potential clinical benefit, a considerable increase in screening resources would be required in terms of number of screens and screen follow-ups. Further economic analyses are required to fully understand cost and budget implications.

Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment

Background

Screening with mammography aims to detect breast cancer before clinical symptoms appear. Among people with dense breasts, some cancers may be missed using mammography alone. The addition of supplemental imaging as an adjunct to screening mammography has been suggested to detect breast cancers missed on mammography, potentially reducing the number of deaths associated with the disease. We conducted a health technology assessment of supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced mammography, ultrasound, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to mammography for people with dense breasts, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, harms, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding supplemental screening, the preferences and values of patients and health care providers, and ethical issues.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence published from January 2015 to October 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias or RoBANS tools, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature review and conducted cost-effectiveness analyses with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding supplemental screening as an adjunct to mammography for people with dense breasts in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of supplemental screening for dense breasts, we spoke with people with dense breasts who had undergone supplemental screening; performed a rapid review of the qualitative literature; and conducted an ethical analysis of supplemental screening as an adjunct to mammography.

Results

We included eight primary studies in the clinical evidence review. No studies evaluated contrast-enhanced mammography. Nonrandomized and randomized evidence (GRADE: Very low to Moderate) suggests that mammography plus ultrasound was more sensitive and less specific, and detected more cancers compared to mammography alone. Fewer interval cancers occurred after mammography plus ultrasound (GRADE: Very low to Low), but recall rates were nearly double that of mammography alone (GRADE: Very low to Moderate). Evidence of Low to Very low quality suggested that compared with supplemental DBT, supplemental ultrasound was more sensitive, detected more cancers, and led to more recalls. Among people with extremely dense breasts, fewer interval cancers occurred after mammography plus supplemental MRI compared to mammography alone (GRADE: High). Supplemental MRI after negative mammography was highly accurate in people with extremely dense breasts and heterogeneously dense breasts in nonrandomized and randomized studies (GRADE: Very Low and Moderate). In people with extremely dense breasts, MRI after negative mammography detected 16.5 cancers per 1,000 screens (GRADE: Moderate), and up to 9.5% of all people screened were recalled (GRADE: Moderate). Contrast-related adverse events were infrequent (GRADE: Moderate). No study reported psychological impacts, breast cancer-specific mortality, or overall mortality.We included nine studies in the economic evidence, but none of the study findings was directly applicable to the Ontario context. Our lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses showed that supplemental screening with ultrasound, MRI, or DBT found more screen-detected cancers, decreased the number of interval cancers, had small gains in life-years or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and was associated with savings in cancer management costs. However, supplemental screening also increased imaging costs and the number of false-positive cases. Compared to mammography alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for supplemental screening with handheld ultrasound, MRI, or DBT for people with dense breasts were $119,943, $314,170, and $212,707 per QALY gained, respectively. The ICERs for people with extremely dense breasts were $83,529, $101,813, and $142,730 per QALY gained, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the diagnostic test sensitivity of mammography alone and of mammography plus supplemental screening had the greatest effect on ICER estimates. The total budget impact of publicly funding supplemental screening with handheld ultrasound, MRI, or DBT for people with dense breasts over the next 5 years is estimated at $15 million, $41 million, or $33 million, respectively. The corresponding total budget impact for people with extremely dense breasts is $4 million, $10 million, or $9 million.We engaged directly with 70 people via interviews and an online survey. The participants provided diverse perspectives on broad access to supplemental screening for people with dense breasts in Ontario. Themes discussed in the interviews included self-advocacy, patient-doctor partnership, preventive care, and a shared preference for broad access to screening modalities that are clinically effective in detecting breast cancer in people with dense breasts.We included 10 studies in the qualitative evidence rapid review. Thematic synthesis of these reports yielded three analytical themes: coming to know and understand breast density, which included introductions to and making sense of breast density; experiences of vulnerability, which influenced or were influenced by understandings and misunderstandings of breast density and responses to breast density; and choosing supplemental screening, which was influenced by knowledge and perception of the risks and benefits of supplemental screening, and the availability of resources.The ethics review determined that the main harms of supplemental screening for people with dense breasts are false-positives and overdiagnosis, both of which lead to unnecessary and burdensome health care treatments. Screening programs raise inherent tensions between individual- and population-level interests; they may yield population-level benefit, but are statistically of very little benefit to individuals. Entrenched cultural beliefs about the value of breast cancer screening, combined with uncertainty about the effects of supplemental screening on some outcomes and the discomfort of many health care providers in discussing screening options for people with dense breasts suggest that it may be difficult to ensure that patients can provide informed consent to engage in supplemental screening. Funding supplemental screening for people with dense breasts may lead to improved equity in the effectiveness of identifying cancers in people with dense breasts (compared to mammography alone), but it is not clear whether it would lead to equity in terms of improved survival and decreased morbidity.

Conclusions

Supplemental screening with ultrasound, DBT, or MRI as an adjunct to mammography detected more cancers and increased the number of recalls and biopsies, including false-positive results. Fewer interval cancers tended to occur after supplemental screening compared to mammography alone. It is unclear whether supplemental screening as an adjunct to mammography would reduce breast cancer-related or overall mortality among people with dense breasts.Supplemental screening with ultrasound, DBT, or MRI as an adjunct to mammography in people aged 50 to 74 years improved cancer detection but increased costs. Depending on the type of imaging modality, publicly funding supplemental screening in Ontario over the next 5 years would require additional total costs between $15 million and $41 million for people with dense breasts, and between $4 million and $10 million for people with extremely dense breasts.The people we engaged with directly valued the potential clinical benefits of supplemental screening and emphasized that patient education and equitable access should be a requirement for implementation in Ontario. Our review of the qualitative literature found that the concept of breast density is poorly understood, both by people with dense breasts and by some general practitioners. People with dense breasts who receive routine mammography (especially those who receive health care in their nonpreferred language or are perceived to have lower economic status or health literacy) and their general practitioners may not have the awareness or knowledge to make informed decisions about supplemental screening. Some people with dense breasts experienced emotional distress from barriers to accessing supplemental screening, and many wanted to engage in supplemental screening, even when educated about its potential harms, including false-positives and overdiagnosis.Given an overall lack of robust evidence about morbidity and mortality associated with supplemental screening for people with dense breasts, it is not possible to determine whether funding supplemental screening for dense breasts delivers on the ethical duties to maximize benefits and minimize harms for populations and individuals. It is likely that existing inequities in access to breast screening and cancer treatment will persist, even if supplemental screening for dense breasts is funded. Continued efforts to address these inequities by removing barriers to screening might mitigate this concern. It will be important to identify and minimize sources of uncertainty related to benefits and risks of supplemental screening for dense breasts to optimize the capacity for everyone involved to live up to their ethical obligations. Some of these may be resolved with further evidence related to the outcomes of supplemental screening for dense breasts.

Effect of Breast Screening Regimen on Breast Cancer Outcomes: A Modeling Study

Guidelines vary for the age at which to begin breast cancer screening and the interval between examinations. A validated computer model was used to compare estimated outcomes between various screening regimens. The OncoSim-Breast microsimulation model (Canadian Partnership Against Cancer) was used to simulate a cohort of 1.53 million Canadian women born in 1975. The effect of screening regimen on absolute breast cancer mortality rates, stage at diagnosis, number needed to be screened to avert a breast cancer death or save a life year, abnormal recall rates and negative biopsy rates was examined for unscreened women or those entering screening at age 40 or 50 and screened annually or biennially to age 74. Compared to no screening, absolute mortality reduction was 4.6 (biennial 50-74), 5.9 (biennial 40-74) and 7.9 (annual 40-74) fewer deaths per 1000 women. The absolute rate of diagnosis of advanced cancers (Stage 2, 3 and 4) falls in favor of earlier stages as the number of lifetime screens increases. Annual screening beginning at age 40 until age 74 would provide an additional reduction of 2 and 3.3 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women compared to biennial screening beginning at ages 40 and 50, respectively. There is a corresponding drop in the absolute number of Stage 2, 3 and 4 cancers diagnosed.

The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in simulation models: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Assumptions on the natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are necessary to accurately model it and estimate overdiagnosis. To improve current estimates of overdiagnosis (0-91%), the purpose of this review was to identify and analyse assumptions made in modelling studies on the natural history of DCIS in women.

METHODS

A systematic review of English full-text articles using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted up to February 6, 2023. Eligibility and all assessments were done independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias and quality assessments were performed. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Reader agreement was quantified with Cohen's kappa. Data extraction was performed with three forms on study characteristics, model assessment, and tumour progression.

RESULTS

Thirty models were distinguished. The most important assumptions regarding the natural history of DCIS were addition of non-progressive DCIS of 20-100%, classification of DCIS into three grades, where high grade DCIS had an increased chance of progression to invasive breast cancer (IBC), and regression possibilities of 1-4%, depending on age and grade. Other identified risk factors of progression of DCIS to IBC were younger age, birth cohort, larger tumour size, and individual risk.

CONCLUSION

To accurately model the natural history of DCIS, aspects to consider are DCIS grades, non-progressive DCIS (9-80%), regression from DCIS to no cancer (below 10%), and use of well-established risk factors for progression probabilities (age). Improved knowledge on key factors to consider when studying DCIS can improve estimates of overdiagnosis and optimization of screening.

Capturing the True Cost of Breast Cancer Treatment: Molecular Subtype and Stage-Specific per-Case Activity-Based Costing

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) treatment is rapidly evolving with new and costly therapeutics. Existing costing models have a limited ability to capture current treatment costs. We used an Activity-Based Costing (ABC) method to determine a per-case cost for BC treatment by stage and molecular subtype.

METHODS

ABC was used to proportionally integrate multidisciplinary evidence-based patient and provider treatment options for BC, yielding a per-case cost for the total duration of treatment by stage and molecular subtype. Diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, inpatient, emergency, home care and palliative care costs were included.

RESULTS

BC treatment costs were higher than noted in previous studies and varied widely by molecular subtype. Cost increased exponentially with the stage of disease. The per-case cost for treatment (2023C$) for DCIS was C$ 14,505, and the mean costs for all subtypes were C$ 39,263, C$ 76,446, C$ 97,668 and C$ 370,398 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. Stage IV costs were as high as C$ 516,415 per case. When weighted by the proportion of molecular subtype in the population, case costs were C$ 31,749, C$ 66,758, C$ 111,368 and C$ 289,598 for stage I, II, III and IV BC, respectively. The magnitude of cost differential was up to 10.9 times for stage IV compared to stage I, 4.4 times for stage III compared to stage I and 35.6 times for stage IV compared to DCIS.

CONCLUSION

The cost of BC treatment is rapidly escalating with novel therapies and increasing survival, resulting in an exponential increase in treatment costs for later-stage disease. We provide real-time, case-based costing for BC treatment which will allow for the assessment of health system economic impacts and an accurate understanding of the cost-effectiveness of screening.

Overdetection of Breast Cancer

Overdetection (often referred to as overdiagnosis) of cancer is the detection of disease, such as through a screening program, that would otherwise remain occult through an individual’s life. In the context of screening, this could occur for cancers that were slow growing or indolent, or simply because an unscreened individual would have died from some other cause before the cancer had surfaced clinically. The main harm associated with overdetection is the subsequent overdiagnosis and overtreatment of disease. In this article, the phenomenon is reviewed, the methods of estimation of overdetection are discussed and reasons for variability in such estimates are given, with emphasis on an analysis using Canadian data. Microsimulation modeling is used to illustrate the expected time course of cancer detection that gives rise to overdetection. While overdetection exists, the actual amount is likely to be much lower than the estimate used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Furthermore, the issue is of greater significance in older rather than younger women due to competing causes of death. The particular challenge associated with in situ breast cancer is considered and possible approaches to avoiding overtreatment are suggested.