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

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.

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.

Long-Term Survival and Curative-Intent Treatment in Hepatitis B or C Virus-Associated Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Diagnosed during Screening

Background: We initiated a prospective screening trial in patients with hepatitis to diagnose HCC in the early stage and to evaluate the impact on long-term survival. Methods: From 1993−2006, 10,372 patients with chronic hepatitis B (14%), hepatitis C (81%), or both (5%) were enrolled in an HCC screening program. All patients underwent liver biopsy at enrollment. Transabdominal ultrasonography and serum alpha-fetoprotein were evaluated every 6 months. Abnormal screening results led to axial imaging and tumor biopsy. Results: Cirrhosis was confirmed on biopsy in 2074 patients (20%). HCC was diagnosed in 1016 patients (9.8%), all of whom had cirrhosis (49.0% HCC incidence in patients with cirrhosis). HCC was diagnosed at the initial screening in 165 patients (16.2%) and on follow-up in 851 patients (83.8%). The HCC diagnosis median time during follow-up screening was 6 years (range 4−10). Curative-intent treatment (resection, ablation, or transplant) was performed in 713 patients (70.2%). Overall survival at 5 and 10 years in those 713 patients was 30% and 4%, respectively, compared to no 5-year survivors in the 303 patients with advanced-stage disease (p < 0.001). Cause of death at 5 years in the 713 patients treated with curative intent was HCC in 371 patients (52%), progressive cirrhosis in 116 patients (16%), and other causes in 14 patients (2%). At 10 years, 456 patients (64%) had died from HCC, 171 (24%) from progressive cirrhosis, and 57 (8%) from other causes. Conclusions: Our screening program diagnosed early-stage HCC, permitting curative-intent treatment in 70%, but the 10-year survival rate is 4% due to HCC recurrence and progressive cirrhosis.

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.

The Impact of Organised Screening Programs on Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis for Canadian Women Aged 40-49 and 50-59

The relationship between Canadian mammography screening practices for women 40−49 and breast cancer (BC) stage at diagnosis in women 40−49 and 50−59 years was assessed using data from the Canadian Cancer Registry, provincial/territorial screening practices, and screening information from the Canadian Community Health Survey. For the 2010 to 2017 period, women aged 40−49 were diagnosed with lesser relative proportions of stage I BC (35.7 vs. 45.3%; p < 0.001), but greater proportions of stage II (42.6 vs. 36.7%, p < 0.001) and III (17.3 vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001) compared to women 50−59. Stage IV was lower among women 40−49 than 50−59 (4.4% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.005). Jurisdictions with organised screening programs for women 40−49 with annual recall (screeners) were compared with those without (comparators). Women aged 40−49 in comparator jurisdictions had higher proportions of stages II (43.7% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.001), III (18.3% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.001) and IV (4.6% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.001) compared to their peers in screener jurisdictions. Based on screening practices for women aged 40−49, women aged 50−59 had higher proportions of stages II (37.2% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.003) and III (13.6% vs. 12.3%, p < 0.001) in the comparator versus screener groups. The results of this study can be used to reassess the optimum lower age for BC screening in Canada.

Cost-effectiveness of using artificial intelligence versus polygenic risk score to guide breast cancer screening

Background

Current guidelines for mammography screening for breast cancer vary across agencies, especially for women aged 40–49. Using artificial Intelligence (AI) to read mammography images has been shown to predict breast cancer risk with higher accuracy than alternative approaches including polygenic risk scores (PRS), raising the question whether AI-based screening is more cost-effective than screening based on PRS or existing guidelines. This study provides the first evidence to shed light on this important question.

Methods

This study is a model-based economic evaluation. We used a hybrid decision tree/microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of eight strategies of mammography screening for women aged 40–49 (screening beyond age 50 follows existing guidelines). Six of these strategies were defined by combinations of risk prediction approaches (AI, PRS or family history) and screening frequency for low-risk women (no screening or biennial screening). The other two strategies involved annual screening for all women and no screening, respectively. Data used to populate the model were sourced from the published literature.

Results

Risk prediction using AI followed by no screening for low-risk women is the most cost-effective strategy. It dominates (i.e., costs more and generates fewer quality adjusted life years (QALYs)) strategies for risk prediction using PRS followed by no screening or biennial screening for low-risk women, risk prediction using AI or family history followed by biennial screening for low-risk women, and annual screening for all women. It also extendedly dominates (i.e., achieves higher QALYs at a lower incremental cost per QALY) the strategy for risk prediction using family history followed by no screening for low-risk women. Meanwhile, it is cost-effective versus no screening, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,755 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

Risk prediction using AI followed by no breast cancer screening for low-risk women is the most cost-effective strategy. This finding can be explained by AI’s ability to identify high-risk women more accurately than PRS and family history (which reduces the possibility of delayed breast cancer diagnosis) and fewer false-positive diagnoses from not screening low-risk women.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09613-1.

Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC)

BACKGROUND

Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I)

Early detection of breast cancer through screening reduces breast cancer mortality. The benefits of screening must also be considered within the context of potential harms (e.g., false positives, overdiagnosis). Furthermore, while breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population, most screening programs use age to determine eligibility. A risk-based approach is expected to improve the benefit-harm ratio of breast cancer screening programs. The PERSPECTIVE I&I (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation) project seeks to improve personalized risk assessment to allow for a cost-effective, population-based approach to risk-based screening and determine best practices for implementation in Canada. This commentary describes the four inter-related activities that comprise the PERSPECTIVE I&I project. 1: Identification and validation of novel moderate to high-risk susceptibility genes. 2: Improvement, validation, and adaptation of a risk prediction web-tool for the Canadian context. 3: Development and piloting of a socio-ethical framework to support implementation of risk-based breast cancer screening. 4: Economic analysis to optimize the implementation of risk-based screening. Risk-based screening and prevention is expected to benefit all women, empowering them to work with their healthcare provider to make informed decisions about screening and prevention.

Cost effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic testing to prevent transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations

STUDY QUESTION

Is it cost-effective to use in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic testing of monogenic defects (IVT/PGT-M) to prevent transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations to second-generation new births in comparison with naturally conceived births?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that IVF/PGT-M is cost-effective for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers if using a willingness to pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation have a significantly increased risk of several types of cancer throughout their lifetime. The cost of risk reduction, screening and treatment of cancer in this population is high. In addition, there is a 50% chance of passing on this genetic mutation to each child. One option to avoid transmission of an inherited deleterious gene to one's offspring involves in vitro fertilisation with preimplantation genetic testing.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We implemented a state transition model comparing the healthcare impact of a cohort of healthy children born after IVF/PGT-M, who have a population risk of developing cancer, to a cohort of naturally conceived live-births, half of whom are carriers of the BRCA mutation. Transition probabilities are based on published sources, a lifetime horizon and a perspective of a provincial Ministry of Health in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The target population is the second-generation new births who have at least one parent with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, IVF/PGT-M is a cost-effective intervention for carriers of either BRCA mutation. For BRCA1, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for IVF/PGT-M is $14 242/QALY. For BRCA2, the ICER of intervention is $12 893/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results show that IVF/PGT-M has a 98.4 and 97.3% chance of being cost-effective for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively, at the $50 000/QALY threshold.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our model did not include the short-term negative effect of IVF/PGT-M on the woman's quality of life; in addition, our model did not consider any ethical issues related to post-implantation genetic testing.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

In countries in which the healthcare of a large segment of the population is covered by a single payer system such as the government, it would be cost-effective for that payer to cover the cost of IVF/PGT-M for couples in which one member has a BRCA mutation, in order to avoid the future costs and disutility of managing offspring with an inherited BRCA mutation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Dr Wong's research program was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canadian Liver Foundation and an Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science Early Researcher Award. All authors declared no conflict of interests.

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.

Cost-Utility of Early Breast Cancer Surveillance in Survivors of Thoracic Radiation-Treated Adolescent Hodgkin Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Adolescent women treated for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are at increased risk of breast cancer (BC). We evaluate the cost-utility of eight high-risk BC surveillance strategies for this population, including the Children's Oncology Group guideline of same-day annual mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) beginning at age 25 years.

METHODS

A discrete event simulation model was used to simulate the life histories of a cohort of 500 000 25-year-old women treated for HL at age 15 years. We estimated BC incidence and mortality, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), health-care costs, and the relative cost-utility (incremental cost-utility ratio [ICUR]) under the eight assessed surveillance strategies. One-way sensitivity analysis enabled modeling of uncertainty evaluation. A publicly funded health-care payer perspective was adopted.

RESULTS

Costs across the eight screening strategies ranged from $32 643 to $43 739, whereas QALYs ranged from 24.419 to 24.480. In an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, annual mammography beginning at age 25 years was associated with an ICUR of $43 000/QALY gained, annual MRI beginning at age 25 years with a switch to annual mammography at age 50 years had an ICUR of $148 000/QALY, and annual MRI beginning at age 25 years had an ICUR of $227 222/QALY. Among all assessed surveillance strategies, the differences in life expectancy were small.

CONCLUSIONS

Current high-risk BC surveillance guidelines do not reflect the most cost-effective strategy in survivors of adolescent HL. The results suggest that groups at high risk of BC may require high-risk surveillance guidelines that reflect their specific risk profile.

[The health economics of cancer screening in Germany: Which population-based interventions are cost-effective?]

Only a small proportion of German health expenditure is spent on prevention and early detection (screening). The rationale for screening is to identify persons with disease precursors or at the early stage of diseases when they are still asymptomatic, in order to decrease disease-specific morbidity and mortality. In Germany, the economic evidence is one of the evaluation criteria for screening measures, which, among other things, takes into account the additional cost per additional case detected or per case-related event avoided, as well as a cost-benefit balance.For this purpose, cost-effectiveness analyses, which report marginal or incremental cost effectiveness ratios, comparing a measure with its appropriate alternatives, may be a useful tool. Their application requires a defensible benchmark (threshold) for cost effectiveness and a supplementary analysis of the necessary infrastructure and the budgetary impact associated with program implementation. Also (albeit not only) because of the usually long time required to observe the clinical outcomes of a screening measure, the economic evaluation of such programs regularly involves the application of decision analytic simulation models. With regard to cancer screening programs, the available models indicate an excellent cost-benefit ratio for the fecal occult blood test and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and, similarly, for the use of mammography for breast cancer screening. On the other hand, the economic evidence in favor of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening does not yet appear sufficiently strong, and the currently available health economic evidence does not support the use of PSA testing for prostate screening.

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.