Estimating the cost of 3 risk prediction strategies for potential use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program
Authors
Wright, S. J.Eden, M.
Ruane, H.
Byers, H.
Evans, D Gareth R
Harvie, Michelle N
Howell, Sacha J
Howell, Anthony
French, D.
Payne, K.
Affiliation
Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UKIssue Date
2023
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Background: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be cost-effective but have used assumptions to estimate the cost of risk prediction. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the resource use and associated costs required to introduce a breast cancer risk-stratification approach into the English national breast screening program. Methods: A micro-costing study, conducted alongside a cohort-based prospective trial (BC-PREDICT), identified the resource use and cost per individual (£; 2021 price year) of providing a risk-stratification strategy at a woman's first mammography. Costs were calculated for 3 risk-stratification approaches: Tyrer-Cuzick survey, Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and testing for 142 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Costs were determined for the intervention as implemented in the trial and in the health service. Results: The cost of providing the risk-stratification strategy was calculated to be £16.45 for the Tyrer-Cuzick survey approach, £21.82 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and £102.22 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and SNP testing. Limitations: This study did not use formal expert elicitation methods to synthesize estimates. Conclusion: The costs of risk prediction using a survey and breast density measurement were low, but adding SNP testing substantially increases costs. Implementation issues present in the trial may also significantly increase the cost of risk prediction. Implications: This is the first study to robustly estimate the cost of risk-stratification for breast cancer screening. The cost of risk prediction using questionnaires and automated breast density measurement was low, but full economic evaluations including accurate costs are required to provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening.Citation
Wright SJ, Eden M, Ruane H, Byers H, Evans DG, Harvie M, et al. Estimating the Cost of 3 Risk Prediction Strategies for Potential Use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. MDM policy & practice. 2023 Jan-Jun;8(1):23814683231171363. PubMed PMID: 37152662. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC10161319. Epub 2023/05/08. eng.Journal
MDM Policy and PracticeDOI
10.1177/23814683231171363PubMed ID
37152662Additional Links
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23814683231171363Type
ArticleLanguage
enae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1177/23814683231171363
Scopus Count
Collections
Related articles
- Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.
- Authors: Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Buist DSM, Bowles EJA
- Issue date: 2018 Sep 1
- Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk by race and ethnicity in the Women's Health Initiative.
- Authors: Kurian AW, Hughes E, Simmons T, Bernhisel R, Probst B, Meek S, Caswell-Jin JL, John EM, Lanchbury JS, Slavin TP, Wagner S, Gutin A, Rohan TE, Shadyab AH, Manson JE, Lane D, Chlebowski RT, Stefanick ML
- Issue date: 2021 Oct 15
- Integrating Clinical and Polygenic Factors to Predict Breast Cancer Risk in Women Undergoing Genetic Testing.
- Authors: Hughes E, Tshiaba P, Wagner S, Judkins T, Rosenthal E, Roa B, Gallagher S, Meek S, Dalton K, Hedegard W, Adami CA, Grear DF, Domchek SM, Garber J, Lancaster JM, Weitzel JN, Kurian AW, Lanchbury JS, Gutin A, Robson ME
- Issue date: 2021