Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are suggested with regular breast cancer surveillance screening strategies using mammography with supplementary MRI as an adjunct tool in Western countries. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, however, the benefits of screening modalities remain controversial among different mutated genes and screening schedules.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to collect and compare the results of different cost-effectiveness analyses. A simulated model was used to predict the impact of screening strategies in the target group on cost, life-year gained, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Nine cost-effectiveness studies were included. Combined mammography and MRI strategy is cost-effective in BRCA1 mutation carriers for the middle-aged group (age 35 to 54). BRCA2 mutation carriers are less likely to benefit from adjunct MRI screening, which implies that mammography alone would be sufficient from a cost-effectiveness perspective, regardless of dense breast cancer.

Conclusions

Precision screening strategies among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers should be conducted according to the acceptable ICER, i.e., a combination of mammography and MRI for BRCA1 mutation carriers and mammography alone for BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020205471.

SUBMITTER: Li J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8785233 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundFemale BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have an increased lifetime risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. Hence, they face the difficult decision of choosing a preventive strategy such as risk-reducing surgeries or intensified breast screening. To help these women during their decision process, several patient decision aids (DA) were developed and evaluated in the last 15?years. Until now, there is no conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of these DA. This study aims 1) to provide the first systematic literature review about DA addressing preventive strategy decisions for female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, 2) to analyze the quality of the existing evidence, 3) to evaluate the effects of DA on decision and information related outcomes, on the actual choice for preventive measure and on health outcomes.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using six electronic databases (inclusion criteria: DA addressing preventive strategies, female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, 18 to 75?years, knowledge of test result). The quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCT) was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The quality of included one-group pretest-posttest design studies was evaluated with the ROBINS-I tool. Outcomes of included studies were extracted and qualitatively summarized.ResultsA total of 2093 records were identified. Six studies were included for further evaluation (5 RCT, 1 one-group pretest-posttest design study). One RCT was formally included, but data presentation did not allow for further analyses. The risk of bias was high in three RCT and unclear in one RCT. The risk of bias in the one-group pretest-posttest study was serious. The outcome assessment showed that the main advantages of DA are linked to the actual decision process: Female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers using a DA had less decisional conflict, were more likely to reach a decision and were more satisfied with their decision.ConclusionsDecision aids can support female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers during their decision process by significantly improving decision related outcomes. More high-quality evidence is needed to evaluate possible effects on information related outcomes, health outcomes and the actual choice for preventive measures.