ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013
Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review Focusing on Methodology and Quality Assessment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Machine Learning for Workflow Applications in Screening Mammography: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- All-cause mortality versus cancer-specific mortality as outcome in cancer screening trials: A review and modeling study.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Optimizing AI-assisted decision-making in mammography screening: focusing on uncertainties.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Quality-adjusted life years in the presence and absence of organized mammographic screening using data from BreastScreen Norway.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness and equity impact of complex primary care interventions for disadvantaged populations.BJGP open · 2026Article
- Extension of the mammographic screening programme in Italy: cost-benefit analysis of early diagnosis in the 45-49 and 70-74 age groups.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Use of AI Histopathology in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Review
- Development and quality appraisal of a new English breast screening linked data set as part of the age, test threshold, and frequency of mammography screening (ATHENA-M) study.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness requirements for implementing artificial intelligence technology in the Women's UK Breast Cancer Screening service.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Automatic Classification of Mass Shape and Margin on Mammography with Artificial Intelligence: Deep CNN Versus Radiomics.Journal of digital imaging · 2023Article
- Empowering breast cancer diagnosis and radiology practice: advances in artificial intelligence for contrast-enhanced mammography.Frontiers in radiology · 2023Review
- Diagnostic efficiency of multi-modal MRI based deep learning with Sobel operator in differentiating benign and malignant breast mass lesions-a retrospective study.PeerJ. Computer science · 2023Article
- Population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women - a logical step in reducing the osteoporotic fracture burden?Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2022Article
- Change in effectiveness of mammography screening with decreasing breast cancer mortality: a population-based study.European journal of public health · 2022Article
- Is it time to consider population screening for fracture risk in postmenopausal women? A position paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation Epidemiology/Quality of Life Working Group.Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Article
- Re-evaluation of high-risk breast mammography lesions by target ultrasound and ABUS of breast non-mass-like lesions.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the overall cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme, based on findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and taking into account the uncertainty of associated estimates of benefits, harms, and costs.
designA life table model comparing data from two cohorts.
settingUnited Kingdom's health service. PARTICIPANTS AND
interventions364,500 women aged 50 years-the population of 50 year old women in England and Wales who would be eligible for screening-were followed up for 35 years without screening, compared with a similar cohort who had regular mammographic screening between ages 50 and 70 years and were then followed for another 15 years.
main outcome measuresBetween the cohorts, we compared the number of breast cancer diagnoses, number of deaths from breast cancer, number of deaths from other causes, person years of survival adjusted for health quality, and person years of survival with breast cancer. We also calculated the costs of treating primary and end stage breast cancer, and the costs of screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis explored the effect of uncertainty in key input parameters on the model outputs.
resultsUnder the base case scenario (using input parameters derived from the Independent Panel Review), there were 1521 fewer deaths from breast cancer and 2722 overdiagnosed breast cancers. Discounting future costs and benefits at a rate of 3.5% resulted in an additional 6907 person years of survival in the screened cohort, at a cost of 40,946 additional years of survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Screening was associated with 2040 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of £42.5m (€49.8m; $64.7m) in total or £20,800 per QALY gained. The gain in person time survival over 35 years was 9.2 days per person and 2.7 quality adjusted days per person screened. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that this incremental cost effectiveness ratio varied widely across a range of plausible scenarios. Screening was cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained in 2260 (45%) scenarios, but in 588 (12%) scenarios, screening was associated with a reduction in QALYs.
conclusionThe NHS breast screening programme is only moderately likely to be cost effective at a standard threshold. However, there is substantial uncertainty in the model parameter estimates, and further primary research will be needed for cost effectiveness studies to provide definitive data to inform policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.