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In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).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.

Cumulative risks of false positive recall and screen-detected breast cancer after multiple screening examinations.

Women tend to make a decision about participation in breast cancer screening and adhere to this for future invitations. Therefore, our study aimed to provide high-quality information on cumulative risks of false-positive (FP) recall and screen-detected breast cancer over multiple screening examinations. Individual Dutch screening registry data (2005-2018) were gathered on subsequent screening examinations of 92 902 women age 49 to 51 years in 2005. Survival analyses were used to calculate cumulative risks of a FP and a true-positive (TP) result after seven examinations. Data from 66 472 women age 58 to 59 years were used to extrapolate to 11 examinations. Participation, detection and additional FP rates were calculated for women who previously received FP results compared to women with true negative (TN) results. After 7 examinations, the cumulative risk of a TP result was 3.7% and the cumulative risk of a FP result was 9.1%. After 11 examinations, this increased to 7.1% and 13.5%, respectively. Following a FP result, participation was lower (71%-81%) than following a TN result (>90%). In women with a FP result, more TP results (factor 1.59 [95% CI: 1.44-1.72]), more interval cancers (factor 1.66 [95% CI: 1.41-1.91]) and more FP results (factor 1.96 [95% CI: 1.87-2.05]) were found than in women with TN results. In conclusion, due to a low recall rate in the Netherlands, the cumulative risk of a FP recall is relatively low, while the cumulative risk of a TP result is comparable. Breast cancer diagnoses and FP results were more common in women with FP results than in women with TN results, while participation was lower.

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.

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.

The potential of breast cancer screening in Europe.

Currently, all European countries offer some form of breast cancer screening. Nevertheless, disparities exist in the status of implementation, attendance and the extent of opportunistic screening. As a result, breast cancer screening has not yet reached its full potential. We examined how many breast cancer deaths could be prevented if all European countries would biennially screen all women aged 50 to 69 for breast cancer. We calculated the number of breast cancer deaths already prevented due to screening as well as the number of breast cancer deaths which could be additionally prevented if the total examination coverage (organised plus opportunistic) would reach 100%. The calculations are based on total examination coverage in women aged 50 to 69, the annual number of breast cancer deaths for women aged 50 to 74 and the maximal possible mortality reduction from breast cancer, assuming similar effectiveness of organised and opportunistic screening. The total examination coverage ranged from 49% (East), 62% (West), 64% (North) to 69% (South). Yearly 21 680 breast cancer deaths have already been prevented due to mammography screening. If all countries would reach 100% examination coverage, 12 434 additional breast cancer deaths could be prevented annually, with the biggest potential in Eastern Europe. With maximum coverage, 23% of their breast cancer deaths could be additionally prevented, while in Western Europe it could be 21%, in Southern Europe 15% and in Northern Europe 9%. Our study illustrates that by further optimising screening coverage, the number of breast cancer deaths in Europe can be lowered substantially.

Effects of cancer screening restart strategies after COVID-19 disruption.

BACKGROUND: Many breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the effects of five restart strategies after the disruption on required screening capacity and cancer burden. METHODS: Microsimulation models simulated five restart strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. The models estimated required screening capacity, cancer incidence, and cancer-specific mortality after a disruption of 6 months. The restart strategies varied in whether screens were caught up or not and, if so, immediately or delayed, and whether the upper age limit was increased. RESULTS: The disruption in screening programmes without catch-up of missed screens led to an increase of 2.0, 0.3, and 2.5 cancer deaths per 100 000 individuals in 10 years in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Immediately catching-up missed screens minimised the impact of the disruption but required a surge in screening capacity. Delaying screening, but still offering all screening rounds gave the best balance between required capacity, incidence, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies with the smallest loss in health effects were also the most burdensome for the screening organisations. Which strategy is preferred depends on the organisation and available capacity in a country.

Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Many European countries offer organised population-based breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes. Around age 55 and 60, Dutch women are invited to all three screening programmes. We examined the extent to which participation concurs and identified factors influencing concurrent participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual level data from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening invitations between 2017 and 2019 were extracted from the Dutch screening registry. The percentages of women participating in all three, two, one, or none of the programmes around age 55 and 60, and before subsequent round invitation were determined. Multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to estimate whether population density, socio-economic status (SES) per postal code area, and time between the three invitations (<3, 3-6, >6 months) were associated with concurrent participation. RESULTS: Data from 332,484 women were analysed. At age 55, 53.7% participated in all three programmes, 22.1% in two, 11.7% in one, and 12.6% did not participate at all. At age 60, a similar participation pattern was observed. Women living in areas with higher population density were less likely (odds ratios 0.75-0.94) and women in higher SES groups were more likely (odds ratios 1.12-1.60) to participate in more screening programmes, although this positive association was smaller for the highest SES group. No substantial association was found between concurrent participation and timing of invitations. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of Dutch women participated in all three screening programmes and around 12% did not participate in any. Concurrent participation was lower in cities and lower SES groups.

Effects of a leaflet on breast cancer screening knowledge, explicit attitudes, and implicit associations.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of an information leaflet on knowledge, explicit attitudes, implicit associations, and attendance for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Dutch women (aged 49-75 years) were approached three months before their breast cancer screening invitation. After providing informed consent, participants were randomised to receiving the information leaflet (intervention condition) or not (control condition). Screening knowledge, explicit attitudes, and implicit associations were assessed through web-based questionnaires, at baseline and two weeks later. Actual screening attendance data were collected. RESULTS: In total, 988 women completed both questionnaires. Participants in the leaflet condition scored higher on knowledge (9.9 versus 9.6, p < 0.001, scale 0-11), and more often had positive explicit attitudes (97 % versus 95 %, p = 0.03), than those in the control condition. This contrast was bigger among first-time invitees. Implicit associations were not correlated with explicit attitudes or attendance. Explicit attitudes were moderately correlated with attendance (r=.30, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The information leaflet led to more knowledge and more positive explicit attitudes. Implicit associations towards breast cancer screening were not correlated with attendance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Encouragement to learn about the screening programme can increase levels of knowledge of invitees and therefore support their decision-making about participation. This might be especially relevant for first-time invitees.