Cited by 284Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model

Open access
Pashayan, Nora, Morris, Steve, Gilbert, Fiona J., Pharoah, Paul D. P.·2018·JAMA Oncology

Abstract

Importance: The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources. Objective: To assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening. Design, Setting, and Population: A life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective. Interventions: The modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year. Results: The risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Not offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1901

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [15]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013 https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781. Accessed December 18, 2017. 27905712
  2. [17]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [PMG9]. 2013 https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/the-reference-case#framework-for-estimating-clinical-and-cost-effectiveness. Accessed May 10, 2018. 27905712
  3. [21]Dent T, Chowdhury S, Pashayan N, Hall A, Pharoah PD, Burton H Stratified Screening for Cancer: Recommendations and Analysis From the COGS Project. Cambridge, England: PHG Foundation; 2014 http://www.phgfoundation.org/documents/348_1391164316.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pashayan, N., Morris, S., Gilbert, F. J., & Pharoah, P. D. P.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, England
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Pashayan, Nora
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Published
2018-11-01
Volume
4
Issue
11
Pages
1504
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2829068939
Cited by
284
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 8
FWCI
11.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (10119, 16561, C490/A16561, 26884, A16561)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0515-10067)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P006485/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
breast cancer screening, risk-stratified screening, mammography, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, polygenic risk score, risk thresholds, breast cancer mortality, quality-adjusted life years, net monetary benefit, life table model, women aged 50-69, National Health Service, willingness-to-pay threshold
MeSH terms
Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Risk Assessment, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review