Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33531436›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2021

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography in Singapore: A Modeling Study.

Sarocha Chootipongchaivat, Xin Yi Wong, Kevin Ten Haaf, Mikael Hartman, Kelvin B Tan, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, Hwee-Lin Wee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
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

7 authors.

Sarocha ChootipongchaivatDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. s.chootipongchaivat@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-7714-4737
Xin Yi WongDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Kevin Ten HaafDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Mikael HartmanDepartment of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-5726-9965
Kelvin B TanSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Nicolien T van RavesteynDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3531-466X
Hwee-Lin WeeDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7150-1801

Funding

Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice and PolicyU01CA199218 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2015 to 2019
$9.0M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199218
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited research is available on the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening programs in Asian countries. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Singapore's national mammography screening program, implemented in 2002, recommending annual screening between ages 40 and 49 and biennial screening between ages 50 and 69, and alternative screening scenarios taking into account important country-specific factors.

methodsWe used national data from Singapore in the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Fatal diameter (MISCAN-Fadia) model to simulate 302 screening scenarios for 10 million women born between 1910 and 1969. Screening scenarios varied by starting and ending age, screening interval, and attendance. Outcome measures included life-years gained (LYG), breast cancer deaths averted, false positives, overdiagnosis, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), costs (in 2002 Singapore dollars; S$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and effects were calculated and discounted with 3% using a health care provider's perspective.

resultsSingapore's current screening program at observed attendance levels required 54,158 mammograms per 100,000 women, yielded 1,054 LYG, and averted 57 breast cancer deaths. At attendance rates ≥50%, the current program was near the efficiency frontier. Most scenarios on the efficiency frontier started screening at age 40. The ICERs of the scenarios on the efficiency frontiers ranged between S$10,186 and S$56,306/QALY, which is considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of S$70,000/QALY gained.

conclusionsSingapore's current screening program lies near the efficiency frontier, and starting screening at age 40 or 45 is cost-effective. Furthermore, enhancing screening attendance rates would increase benefits while maintaining cost-effectiveness. IMPACT: Screening all women at age 40 or 45 is cost-efficient in Singapore, and a policy change may be considered.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSingapore

Identifiers

PMID33531436
PMCPMC8026695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.