ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2018
Cost-effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening programme, China.
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 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
54 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
- Breast cancer screening and early diagnosis in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 10.72 million women.BMC women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Does Laterality in Breast Cancer still have the Importance to be Studied? A Meta-analysis of Patients with Breast Cancer.Current medicinal chemistry · 2024Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of mammography to screen for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance AmongFrontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of mammography-based breast cancer screening in Jordan: a healthcare system perspective.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Relationship of women's breast nodules with lifestyle, mental health and metabolic characteristics: a large, retrospective, longitudinal cohort study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Article
- A cost-effective breast cancer screening strategy for Urban China: Findings from a Shenzhen-based modeling study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Dual-modality CAD for breast cancer screening: dealing with discordant diagnosis between mammography and tomography.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography screening for early detection of breast cancer in Nigeria.PloS one · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of two major population-based breast cancer screening programmes in China: a model-based economic evaluation.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Profile of the BREATHE cohort for risk-based breast screening in Singapore.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of genetic risk-stratified screening for breast cancer in Taiwan.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Article
- Personalized screening based on risk and density: prevalence data from the RIBBS study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Observational
- Overlap of high-risk individuals across family history, genetic & non-genetic breast cancer risk models: Analysis of 180,398 women from European & Asian ancestries.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward genetic testing in breast cancer patients in China.PloS one · 2025Article
- The burden and long-term trends of breast cancer by different menopausal status in China.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2024Article
- Trends in hospitalization for female breast and gynecological cancer in China from 2004 to 2020.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Lipid-based nanosystems: the next generation of cancer immune therapy.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo model the cost-effectiveness of a risk-based breast cancer screening programme in urban China, launched in 2012, compared with no screening.
methodsWe developed a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and effects, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), of a breast cancer screening programme for high-risk women aged 40-69 years. We derived or adopted age-specific incidence and transition probability data, assuming a natural history progression between the stages of cancer, from other studies. We obtained lifetime direct and indirect treatment costs in 2014 United States dollars (US$) from surveys of breast cancer patients in 37 Chinese hospitals. To calculate QALYs, we derived utility scores from cross-sectional patient surveys. We evaluated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various scenarios for comparison with a willingness-to-pay threshold.
findingsOur baseline model of annual screening yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$ 8253/QALY, lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$ 23 050/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are robust. In the exploration of various scenarios, screening every 3 years is the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$ 6671/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of the screening is reduced if not all diagnosed women seek treatment. Finally, the economic benefit of screening women aged 45-69 years with both ultrasound and mammography, compared with mammography alone, is uncertain.
conclusionHigh-risk population-based breast cancer screening is cost-effective compared with no screening.
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.