Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography in Singapore: A Modeling Study.
Ontology highlight
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.
SUBMITTER: Chootipongchaivat S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8026695 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence rate of breast cancer is increasing and has become the most common cancer in Vietnamese women while the survival rate is lower than that of developed countries. Early detection to improve breast cancer survival as well as reducing risk factors remains the cornerstone of breast cancer control according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This study aims to evaluate the costs and outcomes of introducing a mammography screening program for Vietnamese women aged 45-64 years, compared to the current situation of no screening.MethodsDecision analytical modeling using Markov chain analysis was used to estimate costs and health outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Model inputs were derived from published literature and the results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and/or incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.ResultsThe ICER per life year gained of the first round of mammography screening was US$3647.06 and US$4405.44 for women aged 50-54 years and 55-59 years, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, mammography screening in the 50-54 age group and the 55-59 age group were cost-effective in 100% of cases at a threshold of three times the Vietnamese Gross Domestic Product (GDP) i.e., US$6332.70. However, less than 50% of the cases in the 60-64 age group and 0% of the cases in the 45-49 age group were cost effective at the WHO threshold. The ICERs were sensitive to the discount rate, mammography sensitivity, and transition probability from remission to distant recurrence in stage II for all age groups.ConclusionFrom the healthcare payer viewpoint, offering the first round of mammography screening to Vietnamese women aged 50-59 years should be considered, with the given threshold of three times the Vietnamese GDP per capita.
| S-EPMC5868837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a breast cancer screening programme that incorporates genetic testing using breast cancer associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), against the current biennial mammogram-only screening programme to aid in its implementation into the current programme in Singapore.MethodsA Markov model was used to compare the costs and health outcomes of the current screening programme, against a polygenic risk-tailored screening programme, which can advise a long-term screening strategy depending on the individual's polygenic risk. The model took the perspective of the healthcare system, with a time horizon of 40 years, following women from the age of 35 to 74. Epidemiological and cost data were taken from Asian studies, and an annual discount rate of 3% was used. The model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated from the difference in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Scenarios with varying risk thresholds for each polygenic risk group were examined. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.ResultsThe ICER for a polygenic risk-tailored breast cancer screening programme, compared with the current biennial mammogram-only screening programme, was - 3713.80 SGD/QALY, with incremental costs < 0 and incremental effects > 0. The scenario analysis of different polygenic risk cutoffs showed that the ICERs remain negative, with all ICERs falling within the south-east quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, indicating that tailored screening is more cost effective than mammogram-only screening, with lower costs and higher QALYs to be gained. This suggests that a polygenic risk-tailored breast cancer screening programme is cost effective, entailing lower cost than the current mammogram-only programme, while causing no additional harm to women.ConclusionResults from this cost-effectiveness analysis show that polygenic risk-tailored screening is cost effective with an ICER of - 3713.80 SGD/QALY. Tailored screening remains cost effective even across varying percentile cutoffs for each risk group. While the results look promising for incorporating polygenic risk into the current breast cancer screening programme, further studies should be conducted to address various limitations.
| S-EPMC8066868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObservational studies show that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) can reduce recall rates and increases rates of breast cancer detection. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of DBT plus DM versus DM alone in British Columbia and to identify parameters that can improve the efficiency of breast cancer screening programs.MethodsWe conducted an economic analysis based on data from a cohort of screening participants in the BC Cancer Breast Screening Program. The decision model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes for participants in breast cancer screening who were aged 40-74 years between 2012 and 2017. We analyzed rates of health care resource utilization, health state costs and estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), to measure incremental cost differences per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from the addition of DBT to DM-based screening, from the government payer's perspective.ResultsThe model simulated economic outcomes for 112 249 screening participants. We found that the ICER was highly sensitive to recall rate reductions and insensitive to parameters related to cancer detection. If DBT plus DM can reduce absolute recall rates by more than 2.1%, the base-case scenario had an ICER of $17 149 per QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, more than 95% of the probabilistic simulations favoured the adoption of DBT plus DM versus DM alone. The ICER depended heavily on the ability of DBT plus DM to reduce recall rates.InterpretationThe addition of DBT to DM would be considered cost-effective owing to the low positive predictive value of screening with DM alone. Reductions in false-positive recall rates should be monitored closely.
| S-EPMC8101637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC9621600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sensitive method of breast imaging virtually uninfluenced by breast density. Because of the improved sensitivity, breast MRI is increasingly being used for detection of breast cancer among high risk young women. However, the specificity of breast MRI is variable and costs are high. The purpose of this study was to determine if breast MRI is a cost-effective approach for the detection of breast cancer among young women at high risk.MethodsA Markov model was created to compare annual breast cancer screening over 25 years with either breast MRI or mammography among young women at high risk. Data from published studies provided probabilities for the model including sensitivity and specificity of each screening strategy. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services while medication costs were obtained from the Federal Supply Scale. Utilities from the literature were applied to each health outcome in the model including a disutility for the temporary health state following breast biopsy for a false positive test result. All costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per year. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective with results reported in 2006 U.S. dollars. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in all model parameters.ResultsBreast MRI provided 14.1 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a discounted cost of $18,167 while mammography provided 14.0 QALYs at a cost of $4,760 over 25 years of screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of breast MRI compared to mammography was $179,599/QALY. In univariate analysis, breast MRI screening became < $50,000/QALY when the cost of the MRI was < $315. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, MRI screening produced a net health benefit of -0.202 QALYs (95% central range: -0.767 QALYs to +0.439 QALYs) compared to mammography at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Breast MRI screening was superior in 0%, < $50,000/QALY in 22%, > $50,000/QALY in 34%, and inferior in 44% of trials.ConclusionAlthough breast MRI may provide health benefits when compared to mammographic screening for some high risk women, it does not appear to be cost-effective even at willingness to pay thresholds above $120,000/QALY.
| S-EPMC2630922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Human papillomavirus (HPV) partial genotyping (PGT) identifies HPV16 and HPV18 individually, alongside 12 other high-risk HPV genotypes (hrHPV) collectively. HPV extended genotyping (XGT) identifies four additional hrHPV individually (HPV31, 45, 51, and 52), and reports the remaining eight in three groups (HPV33|58; 56|59|66; 35|39|68). Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), health care resource use, and costs of XGT were compared to PGT for cervical cancer screening in Singapore using DICE simulation. Women with one of the three hrHPV identified by XGT (HPV35|39|68; 56|59|66; 51), and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) on cytology, are recalled for a repeat screening in one year, instead of undergoing an immediate colposcopy with PGT. At the repeat screening, the colposcopy is performed only for persistent same-genotype infections in XGT, while with PGT, all the women with persistent HPV have a colposcopy. Screening 500,122 women, aged 30-69, with XGT, provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus PGT of SGD 16,370/QALY, with 7130 (19.4%) fewer colposcopies, 6027 (7.0%) fewer cytology tests, 9787 (1.6%) fewer clinic consultations, yet 2446 (0.5%) more HPV tests. The XGT ICER remains well below SGD 100,000 in sensitivity analyses, (-SGD 17,736/QALY to SGD 50,474/QALY). XGT is cost-effective compared to PGT, utilizes fewer resources, and provides a risk-based approach as the primary cervical cancer screening method.
| S-EPMC10046888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend mammography every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 or 50 years, regardless of individual risk for breast cancer.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of mammography by age, breast density, history of breast biopsy, family history of breast cancer, and screening interval.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and the medical literature.Target populationU.S. women aged 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 79 years with initial mammography at age 40 years and breast density of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 1 to 4.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionMammography annually, biennially, or every 3 to 4 years or no mammography.Outcome measuresCosts per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and number of women screened over 10 years to prevent 1 death from breast cancer.Results of base-case analysisBiennial mammography cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained for women aged 40 to 79 years with BI-RADS category 3 or 4 breast density or aged 50 to 69 years with category 2 density; women aged 60 to 79 years with category 1 density and either a family history of breast cancer or a previous breast biopsy; and all women aged 40 to 79 years with both a family history of breast cancer and a previous breast biopsy, regardless of breast density. Biennial mammography cost less than $50,000 per QALY gained for women aged 40 to 49 years with category 3 or 4 breast density and either a previous breast biopsy or a family history of breast cancer. Annual mammography was not cost-effective for any group, regardless of age or breast density.Results of sensitivity analysisMammography is expensive if the disutility of false-positive mammography results and the costs of detecting nonprogressive and nonlethal invasive cancer are considered.LimitationResults are not applicable to carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.ConclusionMammography screening should be personalized on the basis of a woman's age, breast density, history of breast biopsy, family history of breast cancer, and beliefs about the potential benefit and harms of screening.Primary funding sourceEli Lilly, Da Costa Family Foundation for Research in Breast Cancer Prevention of the California Pacific Medical Center, and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
| S-EPMC3759993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening strategies in which MR imaging and screen-film mammography were used, alone and in combination, in women with BRCA1 mutations.Materials and methodsBecause this study did not involve primary data collection from individual patients, institutional review board approval was not needed. By using a simulation model, we compared three annual screening strategies for a cohort of 25-year-old BRCA1 mutation carriers, as follows: (a) screen-film mammography, (b) MR imaging, and (c) combined MR imaging and screen-film mammography (combined screening). The model was used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, existing databases, and calibration. Costs (2007 U.S. dollars) and quality-of-life adjustments were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates and the medical literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of uncertainty in parameter estimates on model results.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, annual combined screening was most effective (44.62 QALYs), and had the highest cost ($110973), followed by annual MR imaging alone (44.50 QALYs, $108641), and annual mammography alone (44.46 QALYs, $100336). Adding annual MR imaging to annual mammographic screening cost $69125 for each additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis indicated that, when the screening MR imaging cost increased to $960 (base case, $577), or breast cancer risk by age 70 years decreased below 58% (base case, 65%), or the sensitivity of combined screening decreased below 76% (base case, 94%), the cost of adding MR imaging to mammography exceeded $100000 per QALY.ConclusionAnnual combined screening provides the greatest life expectancy and is likely cost-effective when the value placed on gaining an additional QALY is in the range of $50000-$100000.Supplemental materialhttp://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09091086/-/DC1.
| S-EPMC2826703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Breast cancer screening policies have been designed decades ago, but current screening strategies may not be optimal anymore. Next to that, screening capacity issues may restrict feasibility. This cost-effectiveness study evaluates an extensive set of breast cancer screening strategies in the Netherlands. Using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Breast (MISCAN-Breast) model, the cost-effectiveness of 920 breast cancer screening strategies with varying starting ages (40-60), stopping ages (64-84) and intervals (1-4 years) were simulated. The number of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and additional net costs (in €) per 1000 women were predicted (3.5% discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare screening scenarios. Sensitivity analyses were performed using different assumptions. In total, 26 strategies covering all four intervals were on the efficiency frontier. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000/QALY gained, the biennial 40 to 76 screening strategy was optimal. However, this strategy resulted in more overdiagnoses and false positives, and required a high screening capacity. The current strategy in the Netherlands, biennial 50 to 74 years, was dominated. Triennial screening in the age range 44 to 71 (ICER 9364) or 44 to 74 (ICER 11144) resulted in slightly more QALYs gained and lower costs than the current Dutch strategy. Furthermore, these strategies were estimated to require a lower screening capacity. Findings were robust when varying attendance and effectiveness of treatment. In conclusion, switching from biennial to triennial screening while simultaneously lowering the starting age to 44 can increase benefits at lower costs and with a minor increase in harms compared to the current strategy.
| S-EPMC9310858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We proposed to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), plus digital or synthetic mammography, with digital mammography alone in women attending population-based breast cancer screenings. We performed a systematic review and included controlled studies comparing DBT with digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Search strategies were applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases. With moderate quality of evidence, in 1,000 screens, DBT plus digital mammography increased the overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 3 and 2 (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.58 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.79, respectively). DBT plus synthetic mammography increased both overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 2 (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54 and RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.55, respectively). DBT did not improve recall, false positive and false negative rates. However due to heterogeneity the quality of evidence was low. For women attending population-based breast cancer screenings, DBT increases rates of overall and invasive breast cancer. There is no evidence with high or moderate quality showing that DBT compared with digital mammography decreases recall rates, as well as false positive and false negative rates.
| S-EPMC7224282 | biostudies-literature