A modelling study to evaluate the costs and effects of lowering the starting age of population breast cancer screening
Koleva-Kolarova, R. G.
De Jonge, C.
Abu Hantash, M. K.
Postema, E. J.
Feenstra, T. L.
Pijnappel, R. M.
Greuter, M. J.
De Bock, G. H.
Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Early Detection of Cancer/economics
false positive result
radiation induced neoplasm
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
health care economics and organizations
cost effectiveness analysis
European Journal of Cancer, 92, S11 - S12. ELSEVIER SCI LTD
Maturitas, 109, 81 - 88. Elsevier Ireland Ltd
Koleva-Kolarova, R G, Daszczuk, A M, de Jonge, C, Hantash, M K A, Zhan, Z Z, Jan Postema, E, Feenstra, T L, Pijnappel, R M, Greuter, M J W & de Bock, G H 2018, ' A modelling study to evaluate the costs and effects of lowering the starting age of population breast cancer screening ', Maturitas, vol. 109, pp. 81-88 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.12.009
European Journal of Cancer, 92(Supp. 3), S11 - S12. ELSEVIER SCI LTD
Rok publikacji :
Opis pliku :
Numer akcesji :
BackgroundBecause the incidence of breast cancer increases between 45 and 50 years of age, a reconsideration is required of the current starting age (typically 50 years) for routine mammography. Our aim was to evaluate the quantitative benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of lowering the starting age of breast cancer screening in the Dutch general population.MethodsEconomic modelling with a lifelong perspective compared biennial screening for women aged 48–74 years and for women aged 46–74 years with the current Dutch screening programme, which screen women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. Tumour deaths prevented, years of life saved (YOLS), false-positive rates, radiation-induced tumours, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated.ResultsStarting the screening at 48 instead of 50 years of age led to increases in: the number of small tumours detected (4.0%), tumour deaths prevented (5.6%), false positives (9.2%), YOLS (5.6%), radiation-induced tumours (14.7%), and costs (4.1%). Starting the screening at 46 instead of 48 years of age increased the number of small tumours detected (3.3%), tumour deaths prevented (4.2%), false positives (8.8%), YOLS (3.7%), radiation-induced tumours (15.2%), and costs (4.0%). The ICER was €5,600/YOLS for the 48–74 scenario and €5,600/YOLS for the 46–74 scenario.ConclusionsWomen could benefit from lowering the starting age of screening as more breast cancer deaths would be averted. Starting regular breast cancer screening earlier is also cost-effective. As the number of additional expected harms is relatively small in both the scenarios examined, and the difference in ICERs is not large, introducing two additional screening rounds is justifiable.