Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

Health utility values of breast cancer treatments and the impact of varying quality of life assumptions on cost-effectiveness.

In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Four hundred sixty four female patients with breast cancer treated at Erasmus MC, the Netherlands, completed EQ-5D-5L questionnaires from diagnosis throughout their treatment. Average utilities were calculated stratified by age and treatment. These utilities were applied in CEAs analysing 920 breast cancer screening policies differing in eligible ages and screening interval simulated by the MISCAN-Breast microsimulation model, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000. The CEAs included varying sets on normative, breast cancer treatment and screening and follow-up utilities. Efficiency frontiers were compared to assess the impact of the utility sets. The calculated average patient utilities were reduced at breast cancer diagnosis and 6 months after surgery and increased toward normative utilities 12 months after surgery. When using normative utility values of 1 in CEAs, QALYs were overestimated compared to using average gender and age-specific values. Only small differences in QALYs gained were seen when varying treatment utilities in CEAs. The CEAs varying screening and follow-up utilities showed only small changes in QALYs gained and the efficiency frontier. Throughout all variations in utility sets, the optimal strategy remained robust; biennial for ages 40-76 years and occasionally biennial 40-74 years. In sum, we recommend to use gender and age stratified normative utilities in CEAs, and patient-based breast cancer utilities stratified by age and treatment or disease stage. Furthermore, despite varying utilities, the optimal screening scenario seems very robust.

Breast Cancer Screening in Georgia: Choosing the Most Optimal and Cost-Effective Strategy.

OBJECTIVES: To define the optimal and cost-effective breast cancer screening strategy for Georgia. METHODS: We used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Breast (MISCAN-Breast) model that has been adapted to the Georgian situation to evaluate 736 mammography screening strategies varied by interval (biennial and triennial), starting ages (40-60 years), stopping ages (64-84 years), and screening modality (with and without clinical breast examination [CBE]). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional cost (healthcare perspective) compared with no screening per 1000 women were calculated with 3% discount. Major uncertainties (eg, costs) are addressed as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Strategies using a combination of mammography and CBE yielded in substantially higher costs with minimal differences in outcomes compared with mammography-only strategies. The current screening strategy, biennial mammography screening from the age of 40 until 70 years with CBE, is close to the frontier line but requires high additional cost given the QALY gains (€16 218/QALY), well above the willingness-to-pay threshold of €12 720. The optimal strategy in Georgia would be triennial mammography-only screening from age 45 to 66 years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12 507. CONCLUSIONS: Biennial screening strategies are resource-intensive strategies and may not be feasible for Georgia. By switching to triennial mammography-only strategy from the age of 45 until 66 years, it is possible to offer screening to more eligible women while still gaining substantial screening benefits. This is to address capacity issues which is a common barrier for many Eastern European countries.

Overcoming barriers: Modelling the effect of potential future changes of organized breast cancer screening in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: Organized breast cancer screening may not achieve its full potential due to organizational and cultural barriers. In Italy, two identified barriers were low attendance in Southern Italy and, in Italy as a whole, underscreening and overscreening in parts of the eligible population. The objective of this study was to identify potential changes to overcome these barriers and to quantify their costs and effects. METHODS: To assess the impact of potential measures to improve breast cancer screening in Italy, we performed an evaluation of costs and effects for increasing adherence for Southern Italy and harmonizing screening intervals (biennial screening) for the whole of Italy, using an online tool (EU-TOPIA evaluation tool) based on the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model. RESULTS: Increasing adherence in Southern Italy through investing in mobile screening units has an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio of €9531 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Harmonizing the screening interval by investing in measures to reduce opportunistic screening and simultaneously investing in mobile screening units to reduce underscreening is predicted to gain 1% fewer life-years, while saving 19% of total screening costs compared to the current situation. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing adherence in Southern Italy and harmonizing the screening interval could result in substantial improvements at acceptable costs, or in the same benefits at lower costs. This example illustrates a systematic approach that can be easily applied to other European countries, as the online tools can be used by stakeholders to quantify effects and costs of a broad range of specific barriers, and ways to overcome them.

Health-related Quality of Life using the EQ-5D-5L: normative utility scores in a Dutch female population.

PURPOSE: Normative utility scores represent the health related quality of life of the general population, are of utmost importance in cost-effectiveness studies and should reflect relevant sexes and age groups. The aim of this study was to estimate EQ-5D-5L normative utility scores in a population of Dutch females, stratified by age, and to compare these scores to those of female populations of three other countries. METHODS: Dutch women completed the EQ-5D-5L online between January and July 2020. Mean normative utilities were computed using the Dutch EQ-5D-5L value set, stratified by age, tested for differences using the Kruskall-Wallis test, and compared to normative utility scores of female populations elsewhere. Additionally, to support the use of the Dutch EQ-5D-5L data in other settings, normative utility scores were also calculated by applying the value sets of Germany, United Kingdom and USA. RESULTS: Data of 9037 women were analyzed and the weighted mean utility score was 0.911 (SD 0.155, 95% CI 0.908-0.914). The mean normative utility scores differed between age groups, showing lower scores in older females. Compared to other normative utility scores of female populations, Dutch mean utilities were consistently higher except for age groups 18-24 and 25-34. With the three country-specific value sets, new age-specific mean normative utility scores were provided. CONCLUSION: This study provides mean normative utility scores of a large cohort of Dutch females per age group, which were found to be lower in older age groups. Utility scores calculated with three other value sets were made available.

The Early Detection of Breast Cancer Using Liquid Biopsies: Model Estimates of the Benefits, Harms, and Costs.

Breast cancer screening is associated with harms, such as false-positives and overdiagnoses, and, thus, novel screen tests can be considered. Liquid biopsies have been proposed as a novel method for the early detection of cancer, but low cell-free DNA tumor fraction might pose a problem for the use in population screening. Using breast cancer microsimulation model MISCAN-Fadia, we estimated the outcomes of using liquid biopsies in breast cancer screening in women aged 50 to 74 in the United States. For varying combinations of test sensitivity and specificity, we quantify the impact of the use of liquid biopsies on the harms and benefits of screening, and we estimate the maximum liquid biopsy price for cost-effective implementation in breast cancer screening at a cost-effectiveness threshold of USD 50,000. We investigate under what conditions liquid biopsies could be a suitable alternative to digital mammography and compare these conditions to a CCGA substudy. Outcomes were compared to digital mammography screening, and include mortality reduction, overdiagnoses, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the maximum price of a liquid biopsy for cost-effective implementation. When liquid biopsies are unable to detect DCIS, a large proportion of overdiagnosed cases is prevented but overall breast cancer mortality reduction and quality of life are lower, and costs are higher compared to digital mammography screening. Liquid biopsies prices should be restricted to USD 187 per liquid biopsy depending on test performance. Overall, liquid biopsies that are unable to detect ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) need to be able to detect small, early-stage tumors, with high specificity, at low costs in order to be an alternative to digital mammography. Liquid biopsies might be more suitable as an addition to digital mammography than as an alternative.

Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost-effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Extremely dense breast tissue is associated with increased breast cancer risk and limited sensitivity of mammography. The DENSE trial showed that additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening in women with extremely dense breasts resulted in a substantial reduction in interval cancers. The cost-effectiveness of MRI screening for these women is unknown. METHODS: We used the MISCAN-breast microsimulation model to simulate several screening protocols containing mammography and/or MRI to estimate long-term effects and costs. The model was calibrated using results of the DENSE trial and adjusted to incorporate decreases in breast density with increasing age. Screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women ages 50-75 years. Outcomes were numbers of breast cancers, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), breast cancer deaths, and overdiagnosis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated (3% discounting), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000. RESULTS: Calibration resulted in a conservative fit of the model regarding MRI detection. Both strategies of the DENSE trial were dominated (biennial mammography; biennial mammography plus MRI). MRI alone every 4 years was cost-effective with €15 620 per QALY. Screening every 3 years with MRI alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €37 181 per QALY. All strategies with mammography and/or a 2-year interval were dominated because other strategies resulted in more additional QALYs per additional euro. Alternating mammography and MRI every 2 years was close to the efficiency frontier. CONCLUSIONS: MRI screening is cost-effective for women with extremely dense breasts, when applied at a 4-year interval. For a willingness to pay more than €22 000 per QALY gained, MRI at a 3-year interval is cost-effective as well.

Implementation Barriers to Value of Information Analysis in Health Technology Decision Making: Results From a Process Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Value of information (VOI) analysis can support health technology assessment decision making, but it is a long way from being standard use. The objective of this study was to understand barriers to the implementation of VOI analysis and propose actions to overcome these. METHODS: We performed a process evaluation of VOI analysis use within decision making on tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for use in the Dutch breast cancer population screening. Based on steering committee meeting attendance and regular meetings with analysts, we developed a list of barriers to VOI use, which were analyzed using an established diffusion model. We proposed actions to address these barriers. Barriers and actions were discussed and validated in a workshop with stakeholders representing patients, clinicians, regulators, policy advisors, researchers, and the industry. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on groups of barriers, which included characteristics of VOI analysis itself, stakeholder's attitudes, analysts' and policy makers' skills and knowledge, system readiness, and implementation in the organization. Observed barriers did not only pertain to VOI analysis itself but also to formulating the objective of the assessment, economic modeling, and broader aspects of uncertainty assessment. Actions to overcome these barriers related to organizational changes, knowledge transfer, cultural change, and tools. CONCLUSIONS: This in-depth analysis of barriers to implementation of VOI analysis and resulting actions and tools may be useful to health technology assessment organizations that wish to implement VOI analysis in technology assessment and research prioritization. Further research should focus on application and evaluation of the proposed actions in real-world assessment processes.

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

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising screening test, but its outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain.PurposeTo determine if biennial DBT is cost-effective in a screening setting, when compared with digital mammography (DM) in the Netherlands, and to quantify the uncertainty.Materials and MethodsIn this study, performed from March 2018 to February 2019, the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis model was used to conduct a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), consisting of 10 000 model runs with 1 000 000 women simulated per run. The Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis package and the Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information tool were used to process PSA outcomes. Two simulated cohorts born in 1970 were invited to undergo biennial screening between ages 50 and 74 years-one cohort was assigned to DM screening, and one was assigned to DBT screening. DM input parameters were based on data from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. DBT parameters were based on literature and expert opinion. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €20 000 ($22 000) and €35 000 ($38 500) per life-year gained (LYG) were considered. Effects and costs were discounted at 3.5% per year.ResultsDBT resulted in a gain of 13 additional life-years per 1000 women invited to screening (7% increase, 13 of 193), followed over lifetime, compared with DM and led to 2% (four of 159) fewer false-positive results. DBT screening led to incremental discounted lifetime effects of 5.09 LYGs (95% confidence interval: -0.80, 9.70) and an increase in lifetime costs of €137 555 ($151 311) per 1000 women (95% confidence interval: €31 093 [$34 202], €263 537 [$289 891]) compared with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €27 023 ($29 725) per LYG. The probability of DBT being more cost-effective was 0.36 at €20 000 and 0.66 at €35 000 per LYG.ConclusionSwitching from digital mammography to biennial digital breast tomosynthesis is not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per life-year gained, but digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher probability of being more cost-effective than digital mammography at a threshold of €35 000 per life-year gained.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue.

Risk stratification in breast cancer screening: Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit ratios for low-risk and high-risk women.

In mammography screening programmes, women are screened according to a one-size-fits-all principle. Tailored screening, based on risk levels, may lead to a better balance of benefits and harms. With microsimulation modelling, we determined optimal mammography screening strategies for women at lower (relative risk [RR] 0.75) and higher (RR 1.8) than average risk of breast cancer, eligible for screening, using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of current uniform screening in the Netherlands (biennial [B] 50-74) as a threshold ICER. Strategies varied by interval (annual [A], biennial, triennial [T]) and age range. The number of life-years gained (LYG), breast cancer deaths averted, overdiagnosed cases, false-positive mammograms, ICERs and harm-benefit ratios were calculated. Optimal risk-based screening scenarios, below the threshold ICER of €8883/LYG, were T50-71 (€7840/LYG) for low-risk and B40-74 (€6062/LYG) for high-risk women. T50-71 screening in low-risk women resulted in a 33% reduction in false-positive findings, a similar reduction in costs and improved harm-benefit ratios compared to the current screening schedule. B40-74 in high-risk women led to an increase in screening benefit, compared to current B50-74 screening, but a relatively higher increase in false-positive findings. In conclusion, optimal screening consisted of a longer interval and lower stopping age than current uniform screening for low-risk women, and a lower starting age for high-risk women. Extending the interval for women at lower risk from biennial to triennial screening reduced harms and costs while maintaining most of the screening benefit.

A health systems approach to identifying barriers to breast cancer screening programmes. Methodology and application in six European countries.

The benefits of population-based screening for breast cancer are now accepted although, in practice, programmes often fail to achieve their full potential. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model that situates screening programmes within the broader health system to understand the factors that influence their outcomes. We view the overall screening system as having multiple sub-systems to identify the population at risk, generate knowledge of effectiveness, maximise uptake, operate the programme, and optimise follow-up and assurance of subsequent treatment. Based on this model we have developed the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST) for analysing government-led, population-based screening programmes from a health systems perspective. Conceived as a self-assessment tool, we piloted the tool with key informants in six European countries (Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and Slovenia) to identify barriers to the optimal operation of population-based breast cancer screening programmes. The pilot provided valuable feedback on the barriers affecting breast cancer screening programmes and stimulated a greater recognition among those operating them of the need to take a health systems perspective. In addition, the pilot led to further development of the tool and provided a foundation for further research into how to overcome the identified barriers.

Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes.

Background: Biennial screening is generally recommended for average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, but tailored screening may provide greater benefits. Objective: To estimate outcomes for various screening intervals after age 50 years based on breast density and risk for breast cancer. Design: Collaborative simulation modeling using national incidence, breast density, and screening performance data. Setting: United States. Patients: Women aged 50 years or older with various combinations of breast density and relative risk (RR) of 1.0, 1.3, 2.0, or 4.0. Intervention: Annual, biennial, or triennial digital mammography screening from ages 50 to 74 years (vs. no screening) and ages 65 to 74 years (vs. biennial digital mammography from ages 50 to 64 years). Measurements: Lifetime breast cancer deaths, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive mammograms, benign biopsy results, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, and ratio of false-positive results to breast cancer deaths averted. Results: Screening benefits and overdiagnosis increase with breast density and RR. False-positive mammograms and benign results on biopsy decrease with increasing risk. Among women with fatty breasts or scattered fibroglandular density and an RR of 1.0 or 1.3, breast cancer deaths averted were similar for triennial versus biennial screening for both age groups (50 to 74 years, median of 3.4 to 5.1 vs. 4.1 to 6.5 deaths averted; 65 to 74 years, median of 1.5 to 2.1 vs. 1.8 to 2.6 deaths averted). Breast cancer deaths averted increased with annual versus biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years at all levels of breast density and an RR of 4.0, and those aged 65 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and an RR of 4.0. However, harms were almost 2-fold higher. Triennial screening for the average-risk subgroup and annual screening for the highest-risk subgroup cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained. Limitation: Models did not consider women younger than 50 years, those with an RR less than 1, or other imaging methods. Conclusion: Average-risk women with low breast density undergoing triennial screening and higher-risk women with high breast density receiving annual screening will maintain a similar or better balance of benefits and harms than average-risk women receiving biennial screening. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Economic evaluation of the breast cancer screening programme in the Basque Country: retrospective cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening in the Basque Country has shown 20 % reduction of the number of BC deaths and an acceptable overdiagnosis level (4 % of screen detected BC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the breast cancer early detection programme in the Basque Country in terms of retrospective cost-effectiveness and budget impact from 1996 to 2011. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to reproduce the natural history of breast cancer (BC). We estimated for lifetime follow-up the total cost of BC (screening, diagnosis and treatment), as well as quality-adjusted life years (QALY), for women invited to participate in the evaluated programme during the 15-year period in the actual screening scenario and in a hypothetical unscreened scenario. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated with the use of aggregated costs. Besides, annual costs were considered for budget impact analysis. Both population level and single-cohort analysis were performed. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was applied to assess the impact of parameters uncertainty. RESULTS: The actual screening programme involved a cost of 1,127 million euros and provided 6.7 million QALYs over the lifetime of the target population, resulting in a gain of 8,666 QALYs for an additional cost of 36.4 million euros, compared with the unscreened scenario. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 4,214€/QALY. All the model runs in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio lower than 10,000€/QALY. The screening programme involved an increase of the annual budget of the Basque Health Service by 5.2 million euros from year 2000 onwards. CONCLUSIONS: The BC screening programme in the Basque Country proved to be cost-effective during the evaluated period and determined an affordable budget impact. These results confirm the epidemiological benefits related to the centralised screening system and support the continuation of the programme.

Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in The Netherlands.

In the Netherlands, routine mammography screening starts at age 50. This starting age may have to be reconsidered because of the increasing breast cancer incidence among women aged 40 to 49 and the recent implementation of digital mammography. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening that starts between age 40 and 49, using a microsimulation model. Women were screened before age 50, in addition to the current programme (biennial 50-74). Screening strategies varied in starting age (between 40 and 50) and frequency (annual or biennial). The numbers of breast cancers diagnosed, life-years gained (LYG) and breast cancer deaths averted were predicted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare screening scenarios. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 (current strategy) was estimated to gain 157 life years per 1,000 women with lifelong follow-up, compared to a situation without screening, and cost €3,376/LYG (3.5% discounted). Additional screening increased the number of LYG, compared to no screening, ranging from 168 to 242. The costs to generate one additional LYG (i.e., ICER), comparing a screening strategy to the less intensive alternative, were estimated at €5,329 (biennial 48-74 vs. current strategy), €7,628 (biennial 45-74 vs. biennial 48-74), €10,826 (biennial 40-74 vs. biennial 45-74) and €18,759 (annual 40-49 + biennial 50-74 vs. biennial 40-74). Other strategies (49 + biennial 50-74 and annual 45-49 + biennial 50-74) resulted in less favourable ICERs. These findings show that extending the Dutch screening programme by screening between age 40 and 49 is cost-effective, particularly for biennial strategies.

Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

BACKGROUND: Many states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. DESIGN: Comparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models. DATA SOURCES: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature. TARGET POPULATION: Contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Payer. INTERVENTION: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result. OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Supplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a false-positive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325,000 per QALY gained (range, $112,000 to $766,000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246,000 per QALY gained (range, $74,000 to $535,000). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age. LIMITATION: Provider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered. CONCLUSION: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.

BACKGROUND: Compared with film, digital mammography has superior sensitivity but lower specificity for women aged 40 to 49 years and women with dense breasts. Digital has replaced film in virtually all US facilities, but overall population health and cost from use of this technology are unclear. METHODS: Using five independent models, we compared digital screening strategies starting at age 40 or 50 years applied annually, biennially, or based on density with biennial film screening from ages 50 to 74 years and with no screening. Common data elements included cancer incidence and test performance, both modified by breast density. Lifetime outcomes included mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and screening and treatment costs. RESULTS: For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50 to 74 years, switching to digital from film yielded a median within-model improvement of 2 life-years, 0.27 additional deaths averted, 220 additional false-positive results, and $0.35 million more in costs. For an individual woman, this translates to a health gain of 0.73 days. Extending biennial digital screening to women ages 40 to 49 years was cost-effective, although results were sensitive to quality-of-life decrements related to screening and false positives. Targeting annual screening by density yielded similar outcomes to targeting by age. Annual screening approaches could increase costs to $5.26 million per 1000 women, in part because of higher numbers of screens and false positives, and were not efficient or cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The transition to digital breast cancer screening in the United States increased total costs for small added health benefits. The value of digital mammography screening among women aged 40 to 49 years depends on women's preferences regarding false positives.