Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23661112›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013

Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model.

Paul D P Pharoah, Bernadette Sewell, Deborah Fitzsimmons, Hayley S Bennett, Nora Pashayan

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Use of AI Histopathology in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Paul D P PharoahDepartments of Oncology and Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
Bernadette Sewell
Deborah Fitzsimmons
Hayley S Bennett
Nora Pashayan

Funding

Cancer Research UK 13065
6 · The paper itself

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

Health Care CostsAgedBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLife TablesMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRiskWales

Identifiers

PMID23661112
PMCPMC3649817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.