Abstract
Study objective To update a published early economic evaluation of exemplar risk-stratified national breast screening programmes (stratified-NBSP).
Method An 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 £; 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.
Results The 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.
Conclusion The 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.
Highlights
A 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.
This 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.
This 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded as part of the National Institute for Health Research PROCAS-2 Programme Grant, (Ref: RP-PG-1214-20016). SW, KP, DPF, DGE and LMcW are supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203308). This work was also supported by the International Alliance for Cancer Early Detection, an alliance between Cancer Research UK, Canary Center at Stanford University, the University of Cambridge, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, University College London and The University of Manchester. The views expressed are those of the authors of this manuscript and not the funding bodies or the Department for Health and Social Care. Precis: Risk-based breast cancer screening strategies are likely to be cost-effective compared to universal screening in the United Kingdom National Health Service.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The model described in this paper and all required input data are publicly available via GitHub: https://github.com/stuwrighthealthecon/MANC-RISK-SCREEN/tree/v1.2 .
https://github.com/stuwrighthealthecon/MANC-RISK-SCREEN/tree/v1.2
