Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in The Netherlands
Corresponding Author
Valérie D.V. Sankatsing
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Correspondence to: Valérie D.V. Sankatsing, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Tel.: +31-10-703-84-65, E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorEveline A.M. Heijnsdijk
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorPaula A. van Luijt
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorNicolien T. van Ravesteyn
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorJacques Fracheboud
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorHarry J. de Koning
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Valérie D.V. Sankatsing
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Correspondence to: Valérie D.V. Sankatsing, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Tel.: +31-10-703-84-65, E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorEveline A.M. Heijnsdijk
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorPaula A. van Luijt
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorNicolien T. van Ravesteyn
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorJacques Fracheboud
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorHarry J. de Koning
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
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.
Abstract
What's New?
Women in the Netherlands are supposed to start routine mammograms at 50, but that recommendation is under review. Considering advances in technology and increasing cancer rates among younger women, these authors studied the cost-effectiveness of digital mammography starting before age 50. The current protocol, biennial screening from ages 50 to 74, costs €3,376 per life-year-gained (LYG). Extending biennial screening to 48 year olds, the authors found, cost €5,329 per additional LYG, and beginning at age 45 increased the cost to €7,628 per additional LYG. Thus, earlier screening could be a cost-effective strategy.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
Filename | Description |
---|---|
ijc29572-sup-0001-suppinfo.doc221 KB |
Supporting Information. |
ijc29572-sup-0002-suppfig1.tif4.3 MB |
Supporting Information Figure 1. |
ijc29572-sup-0003-suppfig2.tif2.6 MB |
Supporting Information Figure 2. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- 1Nederlandse Kankerregistratie. http://www.cijfersoverkanker.nl/. Last accessed January, 2014.
- 2Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP randomized controlled trial. Health insurance plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 27–30.
- 3Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish two-county trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38: 625–51.
- 4Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002; 359: 909–19.
- 5Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, et al.; National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361: 1411–17.
- 6Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Verbeek AL, et al.; National evaluation team for breast cancer. Mammography screening and risk of breast cancer death: a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21: 66–73.
- 7Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 1999; 353: 1903–8.
- 8Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian national breast screening study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 305–12.
- 9Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368: 2053–60.
- 10Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, III, et al. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22: 87–92.
- 11Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, et al. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42: 793–806.
- 12Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Force USPST. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 727–37, W237-W242.
- 13Magnus MC, Ping M, Shen MM, et al. Effectiveness of mammography screening in reducing breast cancer mortality in women aged 39–49 years: a meta-analysis. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2011; 20: 845–52.
- 14Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish mammography screening in young women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 2011; 117: 714–22.
- 15Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 168–75.
- 16Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, et al. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 1432–40.
- 17Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008; 246: 376–83.
- 18 American Cancer Society. http://www.cancer.org/. Last accessed: February, 2014.
- 19 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 716–26, W-236.
- 20 NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk. Last accessed May, 2014.
- 21Groenewoud JH, Otten JD, Fracheboud J, et al. Netb. Cost-effectiveness of different reading and referral strategies in mammography screening in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007; 102: 211–18.
- 22Louwman WJ, Voogd AC, van Dijck JA, et al. On the rising trends of incidence and prognosis for breast cancer patients diagnosed 1975-2004: a long-term population-based study in southeastern Netherlands. Cancer Causes Control 2008; 19: 97–106.
- 23de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, Fracheboud J, et al. The effects of population-based mammography screening starting between age 40 and 50 in the presence of adjuvant systemic therapy. Int J Cancer 2015; 137: 165–72.
- 24de Gelder R, Bulliard JL, de Wolf C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 127–38.
- 25 National Evaluation Team for Breast cancer screening (NETB). National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands 1990-2007. Twelfth evaluation report. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 2009.
- 26de Koning HJ, Boer R, Warmerdam PG, et al. Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish breast cancer-screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 1217–23.
- 27Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Warwick J, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial. Cancer 2003; 97: 2387–96.
- 28 Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 365: 1687–717.
- 29 National Evaluation Team for Breast cancer screening (NETB). National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands 1990-2011/2012. Thirteenth evaluation report. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 2014.
- 30van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, et al.; Team for breast cancer screening in Netherlands study. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 3517–25.
- 31 International Agency for Research on Cancer. Breast cancer screening, vol. 7. In: Vainio H, Bianchini F, eds. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. IARC handbooks of cancer and prevention. Lyon: IARC Press, 2002.
- 32Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007; 244: 708–17.
- 33Perry NM, Patani N, Milner SE, et al. The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 676–82.
- 34Timmers JM, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Zonderland HM, et al. The breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1717–23.
- 35Bailey SL, Sigal BM, Plevritis SK. A simulation model investigating the impact of tumor volume doubling time and mammographic tumor detectability on screening outcomes in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 1263–71.
- 36Neumann PJ. Costing and perspective in published cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 2009; 47: S28–S32.
- 37Saadatmand S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Rutgers EJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105: 1314–21.
- 38de Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, de Haes JC, et al. Advanced breast cancer and its prevention by screening. Br J Cancer 1992; 65: 950–5.
- 39Huisarts en Wetenschap 2002;4:194-98.
- 40 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/. Last accessed January, 2014.
- 41de Haes JC, de Koning HJ, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. Int J Cancer 1991; 49: 538–44.
- 42Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, et al. Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 774–82.
- 43Otten JD, Fracheboud J, den Heeten GJ, et al. Likelihood of early detection of breast cancer in relation to false-positive risk in life-time mammographic screening: population-based cohort study. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 2501–6.
- 44Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Hammond CS, et al. Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 954–61.
- 45Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 738–47.
- 46Carles M, Vilaprinyo E, Cots F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of early detection of breast cancer in Catalonia (Spain). BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 192.
- 47Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, et al. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 10–20.
- 48Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al., DMIST Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 1–10.
- 49Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, et al. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106: dju092.
- 50Chapman RH, Berger M, Weinstein MC, et al. When does quality-adjusting life-years matter in cost-effectiveness analysis? Health Econ 2004; 13: 429–36.
- 51de Kok IM, van Rosmalen J, Dillner J, et al. Primary screening for human papillomavirus compared with cytology screening for cervical cancer in European settings: cost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch microsimulation model. BMJ 2012; 344: e670.
- 52de Boer PT, Pouwels KB, Cox JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination of the elderly against herpes zoster in the Netherlands. Vaccine 2013; 31: 1276–83.
- 53Verhoef TI, Redekop WK, Hasrat F, et al. Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settings. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2014; 14: 451–62.