• Profile
Close

Cost-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm ratio of risk-stratified screening for breast cancer: A life-table model

JAMA Nov 13, 2018

Pashayan N, et al. - In this cost-effectiveness study, researchers investigated the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs vs a standard age-based screening program and no screening. According to findings, adoption of a risk-stratified screening strategy may improve the cost-effectiveness and the benefit-to-harm ratio of breast screening programs.

Methods

  • Researchers used the following to create a life-table model of a hypothetical cohort of 364,500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years: findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile.
  • They undertook the analysis from the National Health Service perspective.
  • The modeled interventions included: no screening, age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50-69 years), and risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution.
  • Between July 2016 and September 2017, they performed all analyses.
  • They assessed overdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB) as main outcome measures.
  • Using probabilistic sensitivity analyses, they ascertained uncertainty around parameter estimates.
  • They discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5% per year.

Results

  • Researchers included a hypothetical cohort of 364,500 women followed up from age 50-85 years, in the risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model.
  • On lowering the risk threshold, a linear increase in the incremental cost of the program was noted when compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below the 35th percentile risk threshold.
  • The highest NMB was noted with the risk-stratified scenario, with risk threshold at the 70th percentile among the three screening scenarios, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective.
  • At the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold, risk-stratified screening would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively, when compared with age-based screening.
Go to Original
Only Doctors with an M3 India account can read this article. Sign up for free or login with your existing account.
4 reasons why Doctors love M3 India
  • Exclusive Write-ups & Webinars by KOLs

  • Nonloggedininfinity icon
    Daily Quiz by specialty
  • Nonloggedinlock icon
    Paid Market Research Surveys
  • Case discussions, News & Journals' summaries
Sign-up / Log In
x
M3 app logo
Choose easy access to M3 India from your mobile!


M3 instruc arrow
Add M3 India to your Home screen
Tap  Chrome menu  and select "Add to Home screen" to pin the M3 India App to your Home screen
Okay