Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28392714›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2017

Economic analysis of the breast cancer screening program used by the UK NHS: should the program be maintained?

Robert Morton, Meelad Sayma, Manraj Singh Sura

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Interventions.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. No association between breast pain and breast cancer: a prospective cohort study of 10 830 symptomatic women presenting to a breast cancer diagnostic clinic.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Superiority ofAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Robert MortonImperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London; Department of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.
Meelad SaymaImperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London; Knowledge Spa, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Truro.
Manraj Singh SuraImperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London; Department of Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOne key tool thought to combat the spiraling costs of late-stage breast cancer diagnosis is the use of breast cancer screening. However, over recent years, more effective treatments and questions being raised over the safety implications of using mammography have led to the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening to be highlighted as an important issue to investigate.

methodsA cost-utility analysis was conducted to appraise the breast cancer screening program. The analysis considered the breast cancer screening program and its utility over a 20-year period, accounting for the typical breast cancer screening period taking place between the ages of 50 and 70 years. Analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). This accepted NHS threshold was utilized for analysis of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY)-£30,000/QALY gain. A systematic literature review was conducted to obtain relevant financial, health, and probability outcomes pertaining to the breast cancer screening program.

resultsThe mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated was at a value of £11,546.11 with subsequent sensitivity analysis conducted around this value. Three sensitivity analyses were undertaken to evaluate ICERs of a range of scenarios which could occur as the following: 1) maximum costs at each node - £17,254/QALY; 2) all costs are fixed costs: screening center costs, and staff are paid for regardless of use - £14,172/QALY; and 3) combination of (1) and (2) to produce a worst case scenario £20,823/QALY. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe majority of calculations suggested that breast cancer screening is cost-effective. However, in our worst case scenario, the ICER fell near the bottom ceiling ratio. This makes it unclear whether the program should be available in the future, as more evidence becomes available over the risks of screening and as some currently expensive chemotherapy drugs begin to lose patents.

Indexed as

breast cancercost-effectivenesseconomic analysisscreening

Identifiers

PMID28392714
PMCPMC5373833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.