Cost–effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening programme, China

70Citations
Citations of this article
134Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To model the cost–effectiveness of a risk-based breast cancer screening programme in urban China, launched in 2012, compared with no screening. Methods We developed a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and effects, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), of a breast cancer screening programme for high-risk women aged 40–69 years. We derived or adopted age-specific incidence and transition probability data, assuming a natural history progression between the stages of cancer, from other studies. We obtained lifetime direct and indirect treatment costs in 2014 United States dollars (US$) from surveys of breast cancer patients in 37 Chinese hospitals. To calculate QALYs, we derived utility scores from cross-sectional patient surveys. We evaluated incremental cost–effectiveness ratios for various scenarios for comparison with a willingness-to-pay threshold. Findings Our baseline model of annual screening yielded an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of US$ 8253/QALY, lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$ 23 050/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are robust. In the exploration of various scenarios, screening every 3 years is the most cost–effective with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of US$ 6671/QALY. The cost–effectiveness of the screening is reduced if not all diagnosed women seek treatment. Finally, the economic benefit of screening women aged 45–69 years with both ultrasound and mammography, compared with mammography alone, is uncertain. Conclusion High-risk population-based breast cancer screening is cost–effective compared with no screening.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sun, L., Legood, R., Sadique, Z., dos-Santos-Silva, I., & Yang, L. (2018). Cost–effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening programme, China. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(8), 568–577. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.207944

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free