Cargando…
The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK
BACKGROUND: There has been growing interest in the UK and internationally of risk-stratified breast screening whereby individualised risk assessment may inform screening frequency, starting age, screening instrument used, or even decisions not to screen. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10667489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37848734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-023-02461-1 |
_version_ | 1785139261482205184 |
---|---|
author | Hill, Harry Kearns, Ben Pashayan, Nora Roadevin, Cristina Sasieni, Peter Offman, Judith Duffy, Stephen |
author_facet | Hill, Harry Kearns, Ben Pashayan, Nora Roadevin, Cristina Sasieni, Peter Offman, Judith Duffy, Stephen |
author_sort | Hill, Harry |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There has been growing interest in the UK and internationally of risk-stratified breast screening whereby individualised risk assessment may inform screening frequency, starting age, screening instrument used, or even decisions not to screen. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of eight proposals for risk-stratified screening regimens compared to both the current UK screening programme and no national screening. METHODS: A person-level microsimulation model was developed to estimate health-related quality of life, cancer survival and NHS costs over the lifetime of the female population eligible for screening in the UK. RESULTS: Compared with both the current screening programme and no screening, risk-stratified regimens generated additional costs and QALYs, and had a larger net health benefit. The likelihood of the current screening programme being the optimal scenario was less than 1%. No screening amongst the lowest risk group, and triannual, biennial and annual screening amongst the three higher risk groups was the optimal screening strategy from those evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: We found that risk-stratified breast cancer screening has the potential to be beneficial for women at the population level, but the net health benefit will depend on the particular risk-based strategy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10667489 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106674892023-10-17 The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK Hill, Harry Kearns, Ben Pashayan, Nora Roadevin, Cristina Sasieni, Peter Offman, Judith Duffy, Stephen Br J Cancer Article BACKGROUND: There has been growing interest in the UK and internationally of risk-stratified breast screening whereby individualised risk assessment may inform screening frequency, starting age, screening instrument used, or even decisions not to screen. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of eight proposals for risk-stratified screening regimens compared to both the current UK screening programme and no national screening. METHODS: A person-level microsimulation model was developed to estimate health-related quality of life, cancer survival and NHS costs over the lifetime of the female population eligible for screening in the UK. RESULTS: Compared with both the current screening programme and no screening, risk-stratified regimens generated additional costs and QALYs, and had a larger net health benefit. The likelihood of the current screening programme being the optimal scenario was less than 1%. No screening amongst the lowest risk group, and triannual, biennial and annual screening amongst the three higher risk groups was the optimal screening strategy from those evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: We found that risk-stratified breast cancer screening has the potential to be beneficial for women at the population level, but the net health benefit will depend on the particular risk-based strategy. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-10-17 2023-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10667489/ /pubmed/37848734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-023-02461-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Hill, Harry Kearns, Ben Pashayan, Nora Roadevin, Cristina Sasieni, Peter Offman, Judith Duffy, Stephen The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK |
title | The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK |
title_full | The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK |
title_fullStr | The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK |
title_full_unstemmed | The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK |
title_short | The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the uk |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10667489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37848734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-023-02461-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hillharry thecosteffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT kearnsben thecosteffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT pashayannora thecosteffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT roadevincristina thecosteffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT sasienipeter thecosteffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT offmanjudith thecosteffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT duffystephen thecosteffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT hillharry costeffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT kearnsben costeffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT pashayannora costeffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT roadevincristina costeffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT sasienipeter costeffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT offmanjudith costeffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk AT duffystephen costeffectivenessofriskstratifiedbreastcancerscreeningintheuk |