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 Nether...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of cancer 2022-07, Vol.151 (2), p.287-296
Hauptverfasser: Kregting, Lindy M., Sankatsing, Valérie D. V., Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M., Koning, Harry J., Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 296
container_issue 2
container_start_page 287
container_title International journal of cancer
container_volume 151
creator Kregting, Lindy M.
Sankatsing, Valérie D. V.
Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.
Koning, Harry J.
Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.
description 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. What's new? Since the implementation of breast cancer screening programs in Europe a few decades ago, breast cancer risk factors have increased and screening and treatment approaches have improved, potentially shifting the harm‐benefit balance of screening. This cost‐effectiveness study evaluates an extensive set of simulated breast cancer screening strategies in the Netherlands. Biannual screening for ages 40 to 76 is a cost‐effective strategy with more benefits than current screening (ages 50‐74). However, intensive screening strategies may not be achievable due to capacity constraints. Triennial screening for ages 44 to 71 or 44 to 74 increases benefits and reduces costs compared to the curre
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ijc.34000
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9310858</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2668229467</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4430-a339ceb312d57a4783fdb2010f837f1c2ec09c9a26e40da2efae448ca7eb38e73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAURi0EokNhwQsgS2xgkfb6J4nDAqkaUSiqxAbWlse5nvEosQc7U5Qdj8Az8iR4mLYCJFZe3HOPvuuPkOcMzhgAP_dbeyYkADwgCwZdWwFn9UOyKDOoWiaaE_Ik5y0AYzXIx-RE1FzVwNSChEsfeh_WdNogjbvJj2agoxnHuE5mt5lptgkxHIg8JTPhen5DL6iNefr5_Qc6h3byNxgwZ2qCGebsM42OdhzoGHscBuzvNj3mp-SRM0PGZ7fvKfly-e7z8kN1_en91fLiurJSCqiMEJ3FlWC8r1sjWyVcv-LAwCnROmY5WuhsZ3iDEnrD0RmUUlnTliWFrTglb4_e3X41Ym8xlAiD3qVyX5p1NF7_PQl-o9fxRneCgapVEby6FaT4dY950qPPtpxjAsZ91rwRqpMgGijoy3_Qbdyn8hcHqlGcd7I5JHp9pGyKOSd092EY6EOLurSof7dY2Bd_pr8n72orwPkR-OYHnP9v0lcfl0flL6KUqXc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2668229467</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost‐effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Kregting, Lindy M. ; Sankatsing, Valérie D. V. ; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M. ; Koning, Harry J. ; Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kregting, Lindy M. ; Sankatsing, Valérie D. V. ; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M. ; Koning, Harry J. ; Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.</creatorcontrib><description>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. What's new? Since the implementation of breast cancer screening programs in Europe a few decades ago, breast cancer risk factors have increased and screening and treatment approaches have improved, potentially shifting the harm‐benefit balance of screening. This cost‐effectiveness study evaluates an extensive set of simulated breast cancer screening strategies in the Netherlands. Biannual screening for ages 40 to 76 is a cost‐effective strategy with more benefits than current screening (ages 50‐74). However, intensive screening strategies may not be achievable due to capacity constraints. Triennial screening for ages 44 to 71 or 44 to 74 increases benefits and reduces costs compared to the current screening strategy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-7136</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0215</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34000</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35285018</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Cancer ; Cancer screening ; Cancer Therapy and Prevention ; Costs ; cost‐effectiveness ; Mammography ; mass screening ; Medical research ; Medical screening ; microsimulation modelling ; screening strategies ; Sensitivity analysis</subject><ispartof>International journal of cancer, 2022-07, Vol.151 (2), p.287-296</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.</rights><rights>2022 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4430-a339ceb312d57a4783fdb2010f837f1c2ec09c9a26e40da2efae448ca7eb38e73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4430-a339ceb312d57a4783fdb2010f837f1c2ec09c9a26e40da2efae448ca7eb38e73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8262-0080 ; 0000-0003-4682-3646 ; 0000-0002-4890-6069</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fijc.34000$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fijc.34000$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,778,782,883,1414,27911,27912,45561,45562</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35285018$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kregting, Lindy M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sankatsing, Valérie D. V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koning, Harry J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.</creatorcontrib><title>Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost‐effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies</title><title>International journal of cancer</title><addtitle>Int J Cancer</addtitle><description>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. What's new? Since the implementation of breast cancer screening programs in Europe a few decades ago, breast cancer risk factors have increased and screening and treatment approaches have improved, potentially shifting the harm‐benefit balance of screening. This cost‐effectiveness study evaluates an extensive set of simulated breast cancer screening strategies in the Netherlands. Biannual screening for ages 40 to 76 is a cost‐effective strategy with more benefits than current screening (ages 50‐74). However, intensive screening strategies may not be achievable due to capacity constraints. Triennial screening for ages 44 to 71 or 44 to 74 increases benefits and reduces costs compared to the current screening strategy.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer screening</subject><subject>Cancer Therapy and Prevention</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>cost‐effectiveness</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>mass screening</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>microsimulation modelling</subject><subject>screening strategies</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><issn>0020-7136</issn><issn>1097-0215</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAURi0EokNhwQsgS2xgkfb6J4nDAqkaUSiqxAbWlse5nvEosQc7U5Qdj8Az8iR4mLYCJFZe3HOPvuuPkOcMzhgAP_dbeyYkADwgCwZdWwFn9UOyKDOoWiaaE_Ik5y0AYzXIx-RE1FzVwNSChEsfeh_WdNogjbvJj2agoxnHuE5mt5lptgkxHIg8JTPhen5DL6iNefr5_Qc6h3byNxgwZ2qCGebsM42OdhzoGHscBuzvNj3mp-SRM0PGZ7fvKfly-e7z8kN1_en91fLiurJSCqiMEJ3FlWC8r1sjWyVcv-LAwCnROmY5WuhsZ3iDEnrD0RmUUlnTliWFrTglb4_e3X41Ym8xlAiD3qVyX5p1NF7_PQl-o9fxRneCgapVEby6FaT4dY950qPPtpxjAsZ91rwRqpMgGijoy3_Qbdyn8hcHqlGcd7I5JHp9pGyKOSd092EY6EOLurSof7dY2Bd_pr8n72orwPkR-OYHnP9v0lcfl0flL6KUqXc</recordid><startdate>20220715</startdate><enddate>20220715</enddate><creator>Kregting, Lindy M.</creator><creator>Sankatsing, Valérie D. V.</creator><creator>Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.</creator><creator>Koning, Harry J.</creator><creator>Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8262-0080</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4682-3646</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4890-6069</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220715</creationdate><title>Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost‐effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies</title><author>Kregting, Lindy M. ; Sankatsing, Valérie D. V. ; Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M. ; Koning, Harry J. ; Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4430-a339ceb312d57a4783fdb2010f837f1c2ec09c9a26e40da2efae448ca7eb38e73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer screening</topic><topic>Cancer Therapy and Prevention</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>cost‐effectiveness</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>mass screening</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>microsimulation modelling</topic><topic>screening strategies</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kregting, Lindy M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sankatsing, Valérie D. V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koning, Harry J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International journal of cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kregting, Lindy M.</au><au>Sankatsing, Valérie D. V.</au><au>Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.</au><au>Koning, Harry J.</au><au>Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost‐effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies</atitle><jtitle>International journal of cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Cancer</addtitle><date>2022-07-15</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>151</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>287</spage><epage>296</epage><pages>287-296</pages><issn>0020-7136</issn><eissn>1097-0215</eissn><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. What's new? Since the implementation of breast cancer screening programs in Europe a few decades ago, breast cancer risk factors have increased and screening and treatment approaches have improved, potentially shifting the harm‐benefit balance of screening. This cost‐effectiveness study evaluates an extensive set of simulated breast cancer screening strategies in the Netherlands. Biannual screening for ages 40 to 76 is a cost‐effective strategy with more benefits than current screening (ages 50‐74). However, intensive screening strategies may not be achievable due to capacity constraints. Triennial screening for ages 44 to 71 or 44 to 74 increases benefits and reduces costs compared to the current screening strategy.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>35285018</pmid><doi>10.1002/ijc.34000</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8262-0080</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4682-3646</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4890-6069</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-7136
ispartof International journal of cancer, 2022-07, Vol.151 (2), p.287-296
issn 0020-7136
1097-0215
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9310858
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Breast cancer
Cancer
Cancer screening
Cancer Therapy and Prevention
Costs
cost‐effectiveness
Mammography
mass screening
Medical research
Medical screening
microsimulation modelling
screening strategies
Sensitivity analysis
title Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost‐effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T11%3A39%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Finding%20the%20optimal%20mammography%20screening%20strategy:%20A%20cost%E2%80%90effectiveness%20analysis%20of%20920%20modelled%20strategies&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20cancer&rft.au=Kregting,%20Lindy%20M.&rft.date=2022-07-15&rft.volume=151&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=287&rft.epage=296&rft.pages=287-296&rft.issn=0020-7136&rft.eissn=1097-0215&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ijc.34000&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2668229467%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2668229467&rft_id=info:pmid/35285018&rfr_iscdi=true