Nicole Mittmann1, Natasha K Stout2, Pablo Lee3, Anna N A Tosteson4, Amy Trentham-Dietz5, Oguzhan Alagoz6, Martin J Yaffe7. 1. Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic (HOPE) Research Centre at Sunnybrook Research Institute and the University of Toronto. 2. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute. 3. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital. 4. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth. 5. Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin. 6. Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center and the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin. 7. Physical Sciences Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute; Departments of Medical Biophysics and Medical Imaging, University of Toronto.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening technology and treatment have improved over the past decade. This analysis evaluates the total cost-effectiveness of various breast cancer screening strategies in Canada. DATA AND METHODS: Using the Wisconsin Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Monitoring Network (CISNET) breast cancer simulation model adapted to the Canadian context, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were evaluated for 11 mammography screening strategies that varied by start/stop age and screening frequency for the general population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented, and sensitivity analyses are used to assess the robustness of model conclusions. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that triennial screening at ages 50 to 69 was the most cost-effective at $94,762 per QALY. Biennial ($97,006 per QALY) and annual ($226,278 per QALY) strategies had higher incremental ratios. INTERPRETATION: The benefits and costs of screening rise with the number of screens per woman. Decisions about screening strategies may be influenced by willingness to pay and the rate of recall for further examination after positive screens.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancer screening technology and treatment have improved over the past decade. This analysis evaluates the total cost-effectiveness of various breast cancer screening strategies in Canada. DATA AND METHODS: Using the Wisconsin Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Monitoring Network (CISNET) breast cancer simulation model adapted to the Canadian context, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were evaluated for 11 mammography screening strategies that varied by start/stop age and screening frequency for the general population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented, and sensitivity analyses are used to assess the robustness of model conclusions. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that triennial screening at ages 50 to 69 was the most cost-effective at $94,762 per QALY. Biennial ($97,006 per QALY) and annual ($226,278 per QALY) strategies had higher incremental ratios. INTERPRETATION: The benefits and costs of screening rise with the number of screens per woman. Decisions about screening strategies may be influenced by willingness to pay and the rate of recall for further examination after positive screens.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast screening; economic analysis; microsimulation model; preventive health
Authors: Scott R Berry; Chaim M Bell; Peter A Ubel; William K Evans; Eric Nadler; Elizabeth L Strevel; Peter J Neumann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Mittmann; J M Porter; J Rangrej; S J Seung; N Liu; R Saskin; M C Cheung; N B Leighl; J S Hoch; M Trudeau; W K Evans; K N Dainty; C DeAngelis; C C Earle Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Claire de Oliveira; Karen E Bremner; Reka Pataky; Nadia Gunraj; Kelvin Chan; Stuart Peacock; Murray D Krahn Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2013-01-16
Authors: Claire de Oliveira; Karen E Bremner; Reka Pataky; Nadia Gunraj; Mahbubul Haq; Kelvin Chan; Winson Y Cheung; Jeffrey S Hoch; Stuart Peacock; Murray D Krahn Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2013-12-09
Authors: Andrew J Leidner; Neil Murthy; Harrell W Chesson; Matthew Biggerstaff; Charles Stoecker; Aaron M Harris; Anna Acosta; Kathleen Dooling; Carolyn B Bridges Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Jan Mokkenstorm; Gerdien Franx; Renske Gilissen; Ad Kerkhof; Johannes Hendrikus Smit Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 3.390