Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 15;151(2):287-296.
doi: 10.1002/ijc.34000. Epub 2022 Mar 21.

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

Affiliations

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

Lindy M Kregting et al. Int J Cancer. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: breast cancer; cost-effectiveness; mass screening; microsimulation modelling; screening strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Cost‐effectiveness curve for scenarios with starting ages between 40 and 60 and stopping ages between 64 and 84, including efficiency frontier [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Effects of internationally implemented strategies assuming 100% attendance. The United Kingdom (UK) and Malta (MA) triennial 50 to 69; Estonia (EST) and biennial 50 to 64; Belgium (BE), Germany (DE), Poland, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Slovenia and Switzerland biennial 50 to 69; the Netherlands (NL) and France (FR) biennial 50 to 74; Hungary (HU) biennial 45 to 65; Austria (AU) and Czech republic (CZ) biennial 45 to 69; Sweden (SW) biennial 40 to 69 [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Comment in

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394‐424. - PubMed
    1. IARC Work Group . IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. In: IARC, WHO , eds. Breast Cancer Screening. Vol 15. Lyon, France; IARC; 2016.
    1. Ponti A, Anttila A, Ronco G, Senore C. Cancer screening in the European Union. Report on the Implementation of the Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening. Brussels: European Commission; 2017.
    1. Mühlberger N, Sroczynski G, Gogollari A, et al. Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk‐adapted strategies. Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22:1311‐1344. - PubMed
    1. van der Waal D, Verbeek ALM, den Heeten GJ, Ripping TM, Tjan‐Heijnen VCG, Broeders MJM. Breast cancer diagnosis and death in The Netherlands: a changing burden. Eur J Public Health. 2014;25:320‐324. - PubMed

Publication types