Volume 137, Issue 8 pp. 1990-1999
Epidemiology

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

Valérie D.V. Sankatsing

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 author
Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk

Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Paula A. van Luijt

Paula A. van Luijt

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn

Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Jacques Fracheboud

Jacques Fracheboud

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Harry J. de Koning

Harry J. de Koning

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 20 April 2015
Citations: 36

Abstract

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.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.