Edward C F Wilson1, Juliet A Usher-Smith2, Jon Emery3, Pippa Corrie4, Fiona M Walter2. 1. Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: ed.wilson@medschl.cam.ac.uk. 2. Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 3. Department of General Practice, Centre for Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Science, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Cambridge Cancer Centre, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population-wide screening for melanoma is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted surveillance of high-risk individuals may be. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of various surveillance strategies in the UK population, stratified by risk using a simple self-assessment tool scoring between 0 and 67. METHODS: A decision model comparing alternative surveillance policies from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over 30 years was developed. The strategy with the highest expected net benefit for each risk score was identified, resulting in a compound risk-stratified policy describing the most cost-effective population-wide strategy. The overall expected cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and associated uncertainty were reported. RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy is for those with a Williams score of 15 to 21 (relative risk [RR] of 0.79-1.60 vs. a mean score of 17 in the United Kingdom) to be offered a one-off full-body skin examination, and for those with a score of 22 or more (RR 1.79+) to be enrolled into a quinquennial monitoring program, rising to annual recall for those with a risk score greater than 43 (RR 20.95+). Expected incremental cost would be £164 million per annum (~0.1% of the National Health Service budget), gaining 15,947 additional QALYs and yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10,199/QALY gained (51.3% probability <£30,000). CONCLUSIONS: The risk-stratified policy would be expensive to implement but cost-effective compared with typical UK thresholds (£20,000-£30,000/QALY gained), although decision uncertainty is high. Phased implementation enrolling only higher risk individuals would be substantially less expensive, but with consequent foregone health gain.
BACKGROUND: Population-wide screening for melanoma is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted surveillance of high-risk individuals may be. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of various surveillance strategies in the UK population, stratified by risk using a simple self-assessment tool scoring between 0 and 67. METHODS: A decision model comparing alternative surveillance policies from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over 30 years was developed. The strategy with the highest expected net benefit for each risk score was identified, resulting in a compound risk-stratified policy describing the most cost-effective population-wide strategy. The overall expected cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and associated uncertainty were reported. RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy is for those with a Williams score of 15 to 21 (relative risk [RR] of 0.79-1.60 vs. a mean score of 17 in the United Kingdom) to be offered a one-off full-body skin examination, and for those with a score of 22 or more (RR 1.79+) to be enrolled into a quinquennial monitoring program, rising to annual recall for those with a risk score greater than 43 (RR 20.95+). Expected incremental cost would be £164 million per annum (~0.1% of the National Health Service budget), gaining 15,947 additional QALYs and yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10,199/QALY gained (51.3% probability <£30,000). CONCLUSIONS: The risk-stratified policy would be expensive to implement but cost-effective compared with typical UK thresholds (£20,000-£30,000/QALY gained), although decision uncertainty is high. Phased implementation enrolling only higher risk individuals would be substantially less expensive, but with consequent foregone health gain.
Authors: Niall A M Klyn; Samantha Kleindienst Robler; Jamie Bogle; Razan Alfakir; Donald W Nielsen; James W Griffith; Deborah L Carlson; Larry Lundy; Sumitrajit Dhar; David A Zapala Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Louisa Gordon; Catherine Olsen; David C Whiteman; Thomas M Elliott; Monika Janda; Adele Green Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Martin Eden; Rob Hainsworth; Louisa G Gordon; Tracy Epton; Paul Lorigan; Lesley E Rhodes; Richard Marais; Adele C Green; Katherine Payne Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 11.113