Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.

DESIGN

Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.

SETTING

United States.

PATIENTS

Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.

INTERVENTION

Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.

MEASUREMENTS

Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.

RESULTS

Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.

LIMITATION

Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.

CONCLUSION

Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Economic Evaluation Alongside a Clinical Trial of Telephone Versus In-Person Genetic Counseling for BRCA1/2 Mutations in Geographically Underserved Areas

PURPOSE

BRCA1/2 counseling and mutation testing is recommended for high-risk women, but geographic barriers exist, and no data on the costs and yields of diverse delivery approaches are available.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation with a randomized clinical trial comparing telephone versus in-person counseling at 14 locations (nine geographically remote). Costs included fixed overhead, variable staff, and patient time costs; research costs were excluded. Outcomes included average per-person costs for pretest counseling; mutations detected; and overall counseling, testing, and disclosure. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of uncertainty.

RESULTS

In-person counseling was more costly per person counseled than was telephone counseling ($270 [range, $180 to $400] v $120 [range, $80 to $200], respectively). Counselors averaged 285 miles round-trip to deliver in-person counseling to the participants (three participants per session). There were no differences by arm in mutation detection rates (approximately 10%); therefore, telephone counseling was less costly per positive mutation detected than was in-person counseling ($37,160 [range, $36,080 to$38,920] v $40,330 [range, $38,010 to $43,870]). In-person counseling would only be less costly than telephone counseling if the most favorable assumptions were applied to in personc ounseling and the least favorable assumptions were applied to telephone counseling.

CONCLUSION

In geographically underserved areas, telephone counseling is less costly than in-person counseling.

[Myelodysplastic syndrome--a retrospective study of 38 patients]

38 patients diagnosed as myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were retrospectively evaluated for clinical course, prognostic factors, diagnostical power of cytology and histology and relevance of hypoplastic myelodysplastic syndrome. Median observation time was 14.5 (0 to 104) months. 15 patients (40%) developed an acute myelogenous leukemia after two to 67 (median eleven) months. Prognosis was negatively influenced by age, suggested myelotoxic agents in prior history and leukemia in first-grade relatives as well as ESR greater than or equal to 30 mm Hg (first hour). FAB-classification and Bournemouth-score reflected prognosis in respect to survival time and development of an acute leukemia. Cytology and histology revealed contradictory results in four of 14 comparable cases (28.6%). Hypoplastic myelodysplastic syndrome was diagnosed by histology in seven out of eight cases. This entity showed significantly lower WBC-values and a considerable longer survival time.