Sun Hee Rim1, Benjamin T Allaire2, Donatus U Ekwueme3, Jacqueline W Miller3, Sujha Subramanian2, Ingrid J Hall3, Thomas J Hoerger2. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS S107-4, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA. srim@cdc.gov. 2. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS S107-4, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: Using a modified CISNET breast cancer simulation model, we estimated outcomes for women aged 40-64 years associated with three scenarios: breast cancer screening within the NBCCEDP, screening in the absence of the NBCCEDP (no program), and no screening through any program. We report screening outcomes, cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and sensitivity analyses results. RESULTS: Compared with no program and no screening, the NBCCEDP lowers breast cancer mortality and improves QALYs, but raises health care costs. Base-case ICER for the program was $51,754/QALY versus no program and $50,223/QALY versus no screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis ICER for the program was $56,615/QALY [95% CI $24,069, $134,230/QALY] versus no program and $51,096/QALY gained [95% CI $26,423, $97,315/QALY] versus no screening. CONCLUSIONS: On average, breast cancer screening in the NBCCEDP was cost-effective compared with no program or no screening.
PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: Using a modified CISNET breast cancer simulation model, we estimated outcomes for women aged 40-64 years associated with three scenarios: breast cancer screening within the NBCCEDP, screening in the absence of the NBCCEDP (no program), and no screening through any program. We report screening outcomes, cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and sensitivity analyses results. RESULTS: Compared with no program and no screening, the NBCCEDP lowers breast cancer mortality and improves QALYs, but raises health care costs. Base-case ICER for the program was $51,754/QALY versus no program and $50,223/QALY versus no screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis ICER for the program was $56,615/QALY [95% CI $24,069, $134,230/QALY] versus no program and $51,096/QALY gained [95% CI $26,423, $97,315/QALY] versus no screening. CONCLUSIONS: On average, breast cancer screening in the NBCCEDP was cost-effective compared with no program or no screening.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Cost-effectiveness; Economic analysis; NBCCEDP; Screening
Authors: Thomas J Hoerger; Donatus U Ekwueme; Jacqueline W Miller; Vladislav Uzunangelov; Ingrid J Hall; Joel Segel; Janet Royalty; James G Gardner; Judith Lee Smith; Chunyu Li Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Michael T Halpern; Elizabeth M Ward; Alexandre L Pavluck; Nicole M Schrag; John Bian; Amy Y Chen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elizabeth Ward; Michael Halpern; Nicole Schrag; Vilma Cokkinides; Carol DeSantis; Priti Bandi; Rebecca Siegel; Andrew Stewart; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 508.702
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