Wilkinson Anna N, Mainprize James G, Yaffe Martin J, Robinson Jessica, Cordeiro Erin, Look Hong Nicole J, Williams Phillip, Moideen Nikitha, Renaud Julie, Seely Jean M, Rushton Moira
Family Medicine, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Jan 2;8(1):e2452821. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52821.
Evolving breast cancer treatments have led to improved outcomes but carry a substantial financial burden. The association of treatment costs with the cost-effectiveness of screening mammography is unknown.
To determine the cost-effectiveness of population-based breast cancer screening in the context of current treatment standards.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this economic evaluation, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer/Statistics Canada OncoSim-Breast microsimulation model was used to estimate the impact of various screening schedules in terms of clinical outcomes and treatment costs. Breast cancer treatment costs were derived from activity-based costing published in 2023 specific to a publicly funded health system in Ontario, Canada. A single birth cohort of individuals assigned female at birth in 1975 was modeled until death or age 99 years (whichever came first).
Five screening scenarios were modeled: no screening, biennial (ages 50-74 years and 40-74 years), hybrid (biennial ages 40-49 years and annual ages 50-74 years), and annual screening (ages 40-74 years).
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for deaths averted, life-years (LYs) gained, and incremental cost-utility ratios for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were determined for screening scenarios. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying screening participation rates and reducing recall rates to 5% and the estimated mortality benefits of screening.
Earlier initiation of breast cancer screening at age 40 years (vs age 50 years) was associated with improved clinical outcomes (deaths averted, LYs saved, and QALYs gained) and reduced health care spending on breast cancer treatment. From a health system perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for biennial screening at ages 40 to 74 years compared with biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years were cost saving, with CAD$49 759 saved per death averted, $1558 per LY saved, and $2007 saved per QALY gained. Annual screening at ages 40 to 74 years was cost-effective while achieving the best breast cancer outcomes, with costs of $25 501 per death averted, $1100 per LY saved, and $1447 per QALY gained compared with the current Canadian standard of biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years.
In this economic analysis, although screening costs increased according to the number of lifetime screens, they were completely or largely offset by reduced breast cancer therapy costs. Digital mammography was a highly cost-effective tool to reduce breast cancer mortality. These results have important policy implications for all single-payer health systems and call for greater investment in screening programs.
不断发展的乳腺癌治疗方法已带来更好的治疗效果,但也带来了巨大的经济负担。治疗成本与乳腺钼靶筛查成本效益之间的关联尚不清楚。
在当前治疗标准背景下确定基于人群的乳腺癌筛查的成本效益。
设计、设置和参与者:在这项经济评估中,加拿大抗癌伙伴关系/加拿大统计局OncoSim-乳腺癌微观模拟模型用于估计各种筛查方案对临床结果和治疗成本的影响。乳腺癌治疗成本源自2023年发布的基于活动成本核算的数据,该数据特定于加拿大安大略省的公共资助医疗系统。对1975年出生时被指定为女性的单一出生队列进行建模,直至死亡或99岁(以先到者为准)。
模拟了五种筛查方案:不筛查、两年一次(50 - 74岁和40 - 74岁)、混合筛查(40 - 49岁两年一次,50 - 74岁每年一次)和每年筛查(40 - 74岁)。
确定了筛查方案在避免死亡、获得生命年(LYs)方面的增量成本效益比,以及在获得质量调整生命年(QALYs)方面的增量成本效用比。通过改变筛查参与率并将召回率降低至5%以及筛查的估计死亡率效益进行敏感性分析。
40岁(相对于50岁)更早开始乳腺癌筛查与改善临床结果(避免死亡、节省生命年和获得质量调整生命年)以及降低乳腺癌治疗的医疗保健支出相关。从医疗系统角度来看,40至74岁两年一次筛查与50至74岁两年一次筛查相比,增量成本效益比是节省成本的,每避免一例死亡节省49759加元,每节省一个生命年节省1558加元,每获得一个质量调整生命年节省2007加元。40至74岁每年筛查具有成本效益,同时能实现最佳乳腺癌治疗效果,与加拿大目前50至74岁两年一次筛查的标准相比,每避免一例死亡成本为25501加元,每节省一个生命年成本为1100加元,每获得一个质量调整生命年成本为1447加元。
在这项经济分析中,尽管筛查成本根据终身筛查次数增加,但它们被乳腺癌治疗成本的降低完全或很大程度上抵消。数字乳腺钼靶是降低乳腺癌死亡率的一种极具成本效益的工具。这些结果对所有单一支付者医疗系统具有重要政策意义,并呼吁加大对筛查项目的投资。