Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27919292›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2016

Cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer amongst postmenopausal women: a model-based economic evaluation.

Ben Kearns, Jim Chilcott, Sophie Whyte, Louise Preston, Susi Sadler

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2016. 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Hereditary Ovarian Cancer: Towards a Cost-Effective Prevention Strategy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Generalized Linear Models for Flexible Parametric Modeling of the Hazard Function.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ben KearnsThe University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. b.kearns@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7730-668X
Jim ChilcottThe University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Sophie WhyteThe University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Louise PrestonThe University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Susi SadlerThe University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) was the biggest ovarian cancer screening trial to date. A non-significant effect of screening on ovarian cancer was reported, but the authors noted a potential delayed effect of screening, and suggested the need for four years further follow-up. There are no UK-based cost-effectiveness analyses of ovarian cancer screening. Hence we assessed the lifetime outcomes associated with, and the cost-effectiveness of, screening for ovarian cancer in the UK, along with the value of further research.

methodsWe performed a model-based economic evaluation. Effectiveness data were taken from UKCTOCS, which considered strategies of multimodal screening (MMS), ultrasound screening (USS) and no screening. We conducted systematic reviews to identify the remaining model inputs, and performed a rigorous and transparent prospective evaluation of different methods for extrapolating the effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality. We considered costs to the UK healthcare system and measured effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We used value of information methods to estimate the value of further research.

resultsOver a lifetime, MMS and USS were estimated to be both more expensive and more effective than no screening. USS was dominated by MMS, being both more expensive and less effective. Compared with no screening, MMS cost on average £419 more (95% confidence interval £255 to £578), and generated 0.047 more QALYs (0.002 to 0.088). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing MMS with no screening was £8864 per QALY (£2600 to £51,576). Alternative extrapolation methods increased the ICER, with the highest value being £36,769 (£13,888 to dominated by no screening). Using the UKCTOCS trial horizon, both MMS and USS were dominated by no screening, as they produced fewer QALYs at a greater cost. The value of research into eliminating all uncertainty in long-term effectiveness was estimated to be worth up to £20 million, or approximately £5 million for four years follow-up.

conclusionsScreening for ovarian cancer with MMS is both more effective and more expensive than not screening. Compared to national willingness to pay thresholds, lifetime cost-effectiveness is promising, but there remains considerable uncertainty regarding extrapolated long-term effectiveness.

Indexed as

PostmenopauseCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsProspective StudiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited KingdomEarly detection of cancerHealth economicsMass screeningOvarian neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID27919292
PMCPMC5139096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.