Literature DB >> 25895135

Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in The Netherlands.

Valérie D V Sankatsing1, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk1, Paula A van Luijt1, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn1, Jacques Fracheboud1, Harry J de Koning1.   

Abstract

In the Netherlands, routine mammography screening starts at age 50. This starting age may have to be reconsidered because of the increasing breast cancer incidence among women aged 40 to 49 and the recent implementation of digital mammography. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening that starts between age 40 and 49, using a microsimulation model. Women were screened before age 50, in addition to the current programme (biennial 50-74). Screening strategies varied in starting age (between 40 and 50) and frequency (annual or biennial). The numbers of breast cancers diagnosed, life-years gained (LYG) and breast cancer deaths averted were predicted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare screening scenarios. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 (current strategy) was estimated to gain 157 life years per 1,000 women with lifelong follow-up, compared to a situation without screening, and cost €3,376/LYG (3.5% discounted). Additional screening increased the number of LYG, compared to no screening, ranging from 168 to 242. The costs to generate one additional LYG (i.e., ICER), comparing a screening strategy to the less intensive alternative, were estimated at €5,329 (biennial 48-74 vs. current strategy), €7,628 (biennial 45-74 vs. biennial 48-74), €10,826 (biennial 40-74 vs. biennial 45-74) and €18,759 (annual 40-49 + biennial 50-74 vs. biennial 40-74). Other strategies (49 + biennial 50-74 and annual 45-49 + biennial 50-74) resulted in less favourable ICERs. These findings show that extending the Dutch screening programme by screening between age 40 and 49 is cost-effective, particularly for biennial strategies.
© 2015 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  age; breast cancer; computer simulation; cost-effectiveness; mammography screening

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25895135     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29572

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  13 in total

1.  Annual mammography at age 45-49 years and biennial mammography at age 50-69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting.

Authors:  Lauro Bucchi; Alessandra Ravaioli; Flavia Baldacchini; Orietta Giuliani; Silvia Mancini; Rosa Vattiato; Fabio Falcini; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Cinzia Campari; Debora Canuti; Enza Di Felice; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Stefano Ferretti; Nicoletta Bertozzi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk.

Authors:  H Amarens Geuzinge; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Emiel J T Rutgers; Sepideh Saadatmand; Ritse M Mann; Jan C Oosterwijk; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Diderick B W de Roy van Zuidewijn; Marc B I Lobbes; Martijne van 't Riet; Maartje J Hooning; Margreet G E M Ausems; Claudette E Loo; Jelle Wesseling; Ernest J T Luiten; Harmien M Zonderland; Cees Verhoef; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

3.  Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; Sandra J Lee; Sylvia K Plevritis; Clyde B Schechter; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

Authors:  Valérie D V Sankatsing; Karolina Juraniec; Sabine E Grimm; Manuela A Joore; Ruud M Pijnappel; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Interventions.

Authors:  Jinani Jayasekera; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  A Micro CT Study in Patients with Breast Microcalcifications Using a Mathematical Algorithm to Assess 3D Structure.

Authors:  David Kenkel; Zsuzsanna Varga; Heike Heuer; Konstantin J Dedes; Nicole Berger; Lukas Filli; Andreas Boss
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Cost-effectiveness of surveillance schedules in older adults with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Daan Nieboer; Tullika Garg; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Harry J de Koning; Matthew E Nielsen
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  All-cause mortality versus cancer-specific mortality as outcome in cancer screening trials: A review and modeling study.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Marcell Csanádi; Andrea Gini; Kevin Ten Haaf; Rita Bendes; Ahti Anttila; Carlo Senore; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-08-18       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Xuan-Anh Phi; Marcel J W Greuter; Alicja M Daszczuk; Talitha L Feenstra; Ruud M Pijnappel; Karin M Vermeulen; Nico Buls; Nehmat Houssami; Wenli Lu; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Screening for cancers with a good prognosis: The case of testicular germ cell cancer.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Steven J Supit; Leendert H J Looijenga; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.