Literature DB >> 33531436

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography in Singapore: A Modeling Study.

Sarocha Chootipongchaivat1, Xin Yi Wong2, Kevin Ten Haaf3, Mikael Hartman4,5,6, Kelvin B Tan5,7, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn3, Hwee-Lin Wee2,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited research is available on the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening programs in Asian countries. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Singapore's national mammography screening program, implemented in 2002, recommending annual screening between ages 40 and 49 and biennial screening between ages 50 and 69, and alternative screening scenarios taking into account important country-specific factors.
METHODS: We used national data from Singapore in the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Fatal diameter (MISCAN-Fadia) model to simulate 302 screening scenarios for 10 million women born between 1910 and 1969. Screening scenarios varied by starting and ending age, screening interval, and attendance. Outcome measures included life-years gained (LYG), breast cancer deaths averted, false positives, overdiagnosis, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), costs (in 2002 Singapore dollars; S$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and effects were calculated and discounted with 3% using a health care provider's perspective.
RESULTS: Singapore's current screening program at observed attendance levels required 54,158 mammograms per 100,000 women, yielded 1,054 LYG, and averted 57 breast cancer deaths. At attendance rates ≥50%, the current program was near the efficiency frontier. Most scenarios on the efficiency frontier started screening at age 40. The ICERs of the scenarios on the efficiency frontiers ranged between S$10,186 and S$56,306/QALY, which is considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of S$70,000/QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: Singapore's current screening program lies near the efficiency frontier, and starting screening at age 40 or 45 is cost-effective. Furthermore, enhancing screening attendance rates would increase benefits while maintaining cost-effectiveness. IMPACT: Screening all women at age 40 or 45 is cost-efficient in Singapore, and a policy change may be considered. ©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33531436      PMCID: PMC8026695          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.090


  23 in total

1.  Attitudes as barriers in breast screening: a prospective study among Singapore women.

Authors:  P T Straughan; A Seow
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Health limitations and quality of life associated with cancer and other chronic diseases by phase of care.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Timothy S McNeel; William R Waldron; William W Davis; Martin L Brown; Steven Clauser; William F Lawrence
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.

Authors:  Donald A Berry; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Dennis G Fryback; Lauren Clarke; Marvin Zelen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Andrei Y Yakovlev; J Dik F Habbema; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  The MISCAN-Fadia continuous tumor growth model for breast cancer.

Authors:  Sita Y G L Tan; Gerrit J van Oortmarssen; Harry J de Koning; Rob Boer; J Dik F Habbema
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

5.  Insights Into Breast Cancer in the East vs the West: A Review.

Authors:  Yoon-Sim Yap; Yen-Shen Lu; Kenji Tamura; Jeong Eon Lee; Eun Young Ko; Yeon Hee Park; A-Yong Cao; Ching-Hung Lin; Masakazu Toi; Jiong Wu; Soo-Chin Lee
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 31.777

6.  Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons.

Authors:  Melanie Y Bertram; Jeremy A Lauer; Kees De Joncheere; Tessa Edejer; Raymond Hutubessy; Marie-Paule Kieny; Suzanne R Hill
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 9.408

7.  Estimation of health state utilities in breast cancer.

Authors:  Seon-Ha Kim; Min-Woo Jo; Minsu Ock; Hyeon-Jeong Lee; Jong-Won Lee
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 8.  Cancer screening recommendations: an international comparison of high income countries.

Authors:  Mark H Ebell; Thuy Nhu Thai; Kyle J Royalty
Journal:  Public Health Rev       Date:  2018-03-02

9.  State-Specific Patterns of Cigarette Smoking, Smokeless Tobacco Use, and E-Cigarette Use Among Adults - United States, 2016.

Authors:  S Sean Hu; David M Homa; Teresa Wang; Yessica Gomez; Kimp Walton; Hua Lu; Linda Neff
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  At what age should screening mammography be recommended for Asian women?

Authors:  Junko Tsuchida; Masayuki Nagahashi; Omar M Rashid; Kazuaki Takabe; Toshifumi Wakai
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 4.452

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Advances in breast cancer screening modalities and status of global screening programs.

Authors:  Chenyu Luo; Le Wang; Yuhan Zhang; Ming Lu; Bin Lu; Jie Cai; Hongda Chen; Min Dai
Journal:  Chronic Dis Transl Med       Date:  2022-05-25

2.  BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE)-A study protocol on personalised risk-based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Jenny Liu; Peh Joo Ho; Tricia Hui Ling Tan; Yen Shing Yeoh; Ying Jia Chew; Nur Khaliesah Mohamed Riza; Alexis Jiaying Khng; Su-Ann Goh; Yi Wang; Han Boon Oh; Chi Hui Chin; Sing Cheer Kwek; Zhi Peng Zhang; Desmond Luan Seng Ong; Swee Tian Quek; Chuan Chien Tan; Hwee Lin Wee; Jingmei Li; Philip Tsau Choong Iau; Mikael Hartman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives.

Authors:  Yu Xian Lim; Zi Lin Lim; Peh Joo Ho; Jingmei Li
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 6.575

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.