Which screening strategy should be offered to women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations? A simulation of comparative cost-effectiveness

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus on the most effective strategy (mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) for screening women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Dutch, UK and US screening strategies, which involve mammography and MRI at different ages and intervals were evaluated in high-risk women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.Methods:Into a validated simulation screening model, outcomes and cost parameters were integrated from published and cancer registry data. Main outcomes were life-years gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The simulation was situated in the Netherlands as well as in the United Kingdom, comparing the Dutch, UK and US strategies with the population screening as a reference. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health benefits.Results:In terms of life-years gained, the strategies from least to most cost-effective were the UK, Dutch and US screening strategy, respectively. However, the differences were small. Applying the US strategy in the Netherlands, the costs were \[euro]43 800 and 68 800 for an additional life-year gained for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. At a threshold of \[euro]20 000 per life-year gained, implementing the US strategy in the Netherlands has a very low probability of being cost-effective. Stepping back to the less-effective UK strategy would save relatively little in costs and results in life-years lost. When implementing the screening strategies in the United Kingdom, the Dutch, as well as the US screening strategy have a high probability of being cost-effective.Conclusion:From a cost-effectiveness perspective, the Dutch screening strategy is preferred for screening high-risk women in the Netherlands as well as in the United Kingdom. © 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.