Literature DB >> 32729887

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

H Amarens Geuzinge1, Inge-Marie Obdeijn2, Emiel J T Rutgers3, Sepideh Saadatmand4, Ritse M Mann5,6, Jan C Oosterwijk7,8, Rob A E M Tollenaar9, Diderick B W de Roy van Zuidewijn7, Marc B I Lobbes10, Martijne van 't Riet11, Maartje J Hooning12, Margreet G E M Ausems13, Claudette E Loo6, Jelle Wesseling14, Ernest J T Luiten15, Harmien M Zonderland16, Cees Verhoef4, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk1, Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst4, Harry J de Koning1.   

Abstract

Importance: For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied. Interventions: Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography). Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied.
Results: This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32729887      PMCID: PMC7393584          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2922

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Oncol        ISSN: 2374-2437            Impact factor:   31.777


  28 in total

Review 1.  The Role of Risk-Reducing Surgery in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Lynn C Hartmann; Noralane M Lindor
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Carla Boetes; Wylie Burke; Steven Harms; Martin O Leach; Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano; Mitchell Schnall; Stephen Sener; Robert A Smith; Ellen Warner; Martin Yaffe; Kimberly S Andrews; Christy A Russell
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years.

Authors:  J C de Haes; H J de Koning; G J van Oortmarssen; H M van Agt; A E de Bruyn; P J van Der Maas
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1991-10-21       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Age at onset as an indicator of familial risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  E B Claus; N J Risch; W D Thompson
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures.

Authors:  Hannah L Bromley; Dennis Petrie; G Bruce Mann; Carolyn Nickson; Daniel Rea; Tracy E Roberts
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue.

Authors:  Marije F Bakker; Stéphanie V de Lange; Ruud M Pijnappel; Ritse M Mann; Petra H M Peeters; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Marleen J Emaus; Claudette E Loo; Robertus H C Bisschops; Marc B I Lobbes; Matthijn D F de Jong; Katya M Duvivier; Jeroen Veltman; Nico Karssemeijer; Harry J de Koning; Paul J van Diest; Willem P T M Mali; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Wouter B Veldhuis; Carla H van Gils
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Optimal age to start preventive measures in women with BRCA1/2 mutations or high familial breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Hester F Lingsma; D Gareth Evans; Deborah Thompson; Reinoutje Kaas; Peggy Manders; Christi J van Asperen; Muriel Adank; Maartje J Hooning; Gek E Kwan Lim; Rosalind Eeles; Jan C Oosterwijk; Martin O Leach; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths.

Authors:  R de Gelder; G Draisma; E A M Heijnsdijk; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Communicating the parameter uncertainty in the IQWiG efficiency frontier to decision-makers.

Authors:  Björn Stollenwerk; Stefan K Lhachimi; Andrew Briggs; Elisabeth Fenwick; Jaime J Caro; Uwe Siebert; Marion Danner; Andreas Gerber-Grote
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  4 in total

1.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance Among BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jiaxin Li; Ziqi Jia; Menglu Zhang; Gang Liu; Zeyu Xing; Xin Wang; Xin Huang; Kexin Feng; Jiang Wu; Wenyan Wang; Jie Wang; Jiaqi Liu; Xiang Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 6.244

2.  Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined with Serum CA15-3, CYFRA21-1, and TFF1 for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Feng Xue; Yu Meng; Jie Jiang
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.682

3.  Downstream Mammary and Extramammary Cascade Services and Spending Following Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Mammography Among Commercially Insured Women.

Authors:  Ishani Ganguli; Nancy L Keating; Nitya Thakore; Joyce Lii; Sughra Raza; Lydia E Pace
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-04-01

4.  Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening for Women With Extremely Dense Breast Tissue.

Authors:  H Amarens Geuzinge; Marije F Bakker; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Wouter B Veldhuis; Ruud M Pijnappel; Stéphanie V de Lange; Marleen J Emaus; Ritse M Mann; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Petra K de Koekkoek-Doll; Carla H van Gils; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 13.506

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.