Evaluation of a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: An updated cost-effectiveness analysis
Wright, S. J.; Rogers, G.; Gray, E.; Donten, A.; McWilliams, L.; French, D. P.; Evans, D. G.; Payne, K.
Show abstract
Study objectiveTo update a published early economic evaluation of exemplar risk-stratified national breast screening programmes (stratified-NBSP). MethodAn existing validated decision-analytic model, using discrete event simulation (the Gray-model), was used to structure the pathways for 3 stratified-NBSP (risk-1; risk-2; risk-3) compared with the current NBSP in the United Kingdom (UK-NBSP), biannual screening, and no screening. The updated model is called MANC-RISK-SCREEN and assumes a life-time horizon, the UK health service perspective to identify costs (using {pound}; 2022) and measures health consequences using life-years and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). The original data sources used for the Gray-model were assessed for current relevance and updated where feasible. Updated data sources included: cancer and all-cause mortality; breast cancer incidence; breast cancer risk data; tumour staging; recall rate; mammographic sensitivity by breast density group; costs; and utilities. Model parameter uncertainty was assessed using Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analysis. ResultsThe base case analysis, supported by PSA, suggested that there was always a risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening that was superior to universal screening. In the base case analysis, a strategy of dividing women into three equal groups based on risk was the most cost-effective. In the PSA, a strategy based on that used in the BC-PREDICT study was the most cost-effective. There was uncertainty in whether the addition of reduced screening for women at lower risk was cost-effective. ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that risk-stratified approaches to breast cancer screening are more cost-effective than both 3-yearly and 2-yearly universal screening. HighlightsO_LIA published early decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, using discrete event simulation (the Gray model), produced indicative results suggesting all included exemplars of a stratified national breast screening programme (stratified-NBSP) were cost-effective compared with no screening but a fully incremental analysis indicated only risk-based stratified-NBSP were cost-effective. C_LIO_LIThis study uses a subsequently validated version of the Gray-model to produce a cost-effectiveness analysis with an updated model called MANC-RISK-SCREEN using revised descriptions of the relevant stratified-NBSP and new values for cancer and all-cause mortality; breast cancer incidence; breast cancer risk data; tumour staging; recall rate; mammographic sensitivity by breast density group; costs; and utilities. C_LIO_LIThis analysis builds on the indicative estimates of the healthcare costs and health consequences of stratified-NBSP and suggests, with the current level of evidence, they are a cost-effective use of the NHS budget in the United Kingdom but uncertainty remains in the value of reducing screening for those at lower risk. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Psychological Impact of the Galleri Test (sIG(n)al): Protocol for a longitudinal evaluation of the psychological impact of receiving a cancer signal in the NHS-Galleri Trial 92%
- Development and validation of multivariable machine learning algorithms to predict risk of cancer in symptomatic patients referred urgently from primary care 92%
- An economic evaluation of two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cost-effectiveness of CA125- and age-informed risk-based triage for ovarian cancer detection in primary care 93%
- BRCA-DIRECT digital pathway for diagnostic germline genetic testing within a UK breast oncology setting: a randomised, non-inferiority trial 92%
- The impact of COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening in England on excess diagnoses 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Novel mammogram-based measures improve breast cancer risk prediction beyond an established mammographic density measure 92%
- Effects of Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Development, Documentation and Validation of a Multistate Markov Model 90%
- Prelude to Malignancy: A Gene Expression Signature in Normal Mammary Gland from Breast Cancer Patients Suggests Pre-tumorous Alterations and Is Associated with Adverse Outcomes 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE) - A Study Protocol On Personalised Risk-based Breast Cancer Screening Programme 92%
- Direct medical and non-medical costs of a one-year care pathway for early breast cancer: results of a French multicenter prospective study 92%
- Sparse canonical correlation to identify breast cancer related genes regulated by copy number aberrations 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Machine learning approach to dynamic risk modeling of mortality in COVID-19: a UK Biobank study 90%
- Accurate Prediction of Breast Cancer Survival through Coherent Voting Networks with Gene Expression Profiling 89%
- Rho GTPase transcriptional activity and breast cancer risk: A Mendelian randomization analysis 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.