Literature DB >> 19038540

Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland.

Rianne de Gelder1, Jean-Luc Bulliard, Chris de Wolf, Jacques Fracheboud, Gerrit Draisma, Doris Schopper, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various centralised mammography screening programmes have shown to reduce breast cancer mortality at reasonable costs. However, mammography screening is not necessarily cost-effective in every situation. Opportunistic screening, the predominant screening modality in several European countries, may under certain circumstances be a cost-effective alternative. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of both screening modalities in Switzerland.
METHODS: Using micro-simulation modelling, we predicted the effects and costs of biennial mammography screening for 50-69 years old women between 1999 and 2020, in the Swiss female population aged 30-70 in 1999. A sensitivity analysis on the test sensitivity of opportunistic screening was performed.
RESULTS: Organised mammography screening with an 80% participation rate yielded a breast cancer mortality reduction of 13%. Twenty years after the start of screening, the predicted annual breast cancer mortality was 25% lower than in a situation without screening. The 3% discounted cost-effectiveness ratio of organised mammography screening was euro11,512 per life year gained. Opportunistic screening with a similar participation rate was comparably effective, but at twice the costs: euro22,671-24,707 per life year gained. This was mainly related to the high costs of opportunistic mammography and frequent use of imaging diagnostics in combination with an opportunistic mammogram.
CONCLUSION: Although data on the performance of opportunistic screening are limited, both opportunistic and organised mammography screening seem effective in reducing breast cancer mortality in Switzerland. However, for opportunistic screening to become equally cost-effective as organised screening, costs and use of additional diagnostics should be reduced.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19038540     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  19 in total

Review 1.  Challenges to the early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in developing countries.

Authors:  Karla Unger-Saldaña
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-10

2.  Biennial screening mammography: How many women ask for more? Estimate of the interval mammogram rate in an organised population-based screening programme.

Authors:  Luca Alessandro Carbonaro; Sighelgaita Sonia Rizzo; Simone Schiaffino; Anna Pisani Mainini; Nicole Berger; Rubina Manuela Trimboli; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 3.  Relevance of Health Economics in the Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Germany - the View of the Professional Association of Practicing Gynecologic Oncologists e.V. (BNGO).

Authors:  Christoph Uleer; Joachim Wagner; Christina Moisidis-Tesch
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Detecting Germline PTEN Mutations Among At-Risk Patients With Cancer: An Age- and Sex-Specific Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Joanne Ngeow; Chang Liu; Ke Zhou; Kevin D Frick; David B Matchar; Charis Eng
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-07-13       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  How does early detection by screening affect disease progression? Modeling estimated benefits in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Wever; Gerrit Draisma; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 2.583

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

Authors:  Kevin C Oeffinger; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Ruth Etzioni; Abbe Herzig; James S Michaelson; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Samuel J LaMonte; Andrew M D Wolf; Carol DeSantis; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Kimberly Andrews; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Robert A Smith; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Breast cancer screening in the Czech Republic: time trends in performance indicators during the first seven years of the organised programme.

Authors:  Ondrej Majek; Jan Danes; Miroslava Skovajsova; Helena Bartonkova; Lucie Buresova; Daniel Klimes; Petr Brabec; Pavel Kozeny; Ladislav Dusek
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 8.  Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening.

Authors:  Rianne de Gelder; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jacques Fracheboud; Gerrit Draisma; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

9.  Assessment of breast cancer opportunistic screening by clinical-pathological indicators: a population-based study.

Authors:  A Bordoni; N M Probst-Hensch; L Mazzucchelli; A Spitale
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-10-27       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography; a systematic review.

Authors:  Arash Rashidian; Eshagh Barfar; Hamed Hosseini; Shirin Nosratnejad; Esmat Barooti
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 1.429

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.