Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37152662›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Estimating the Cost of 3 Risk Prediction Strategies for Potential Use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program.

Stuart J Wright, Martin Eden, Helen Ruane, Helen Byers, D Gareth Evans, Michelle Harvie, Sacha J Howell, Anthony Howell, David French, Katherine Payne

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Implementing a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. Clinical implementation of polygenic risk scores.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Stuart J WrightManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-7998
Martin EdenManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Helen RuaneThe Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Helen ByersDivision of Evolution and Genomic Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
D Gareth EvansThe Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Michelle HarvieThe Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Sacha J HowellThe Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8141-6515
Anthony HowellThe Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
David FrenchNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS foundation trust.
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be cost-effective but have used assumptions to estimate the cost of risk prediction. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the resource use and associated costs required to introduce a breast cancer risk-stratification approach into the English national breast screening program. Methods: A micro-costing study, conducted alongside a cohort-based prospective trial (BC-PREDICT), identified the resource use and cost per individual (£; 2021 price year) of providing a risk-stratification strategy at a woman's first mammography. Costs were calculated for 3 risk-stratification approaches: Tyrer-Cuzick survey, Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and testing for 142 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Costs were determined for the intervention as implemented in the trial and in the health service. Results: The cost of providing the risk-stratification strategy was calculated to be £16.45 for the Tyrer-Cuzick survey approach, £21.82 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and £102.22 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and SNP testing. Limitations: This study did not use formal expert elicitation methods to synthesize estimates. Conclusion: The costs of risk prediction using a survey and breast density measurement were low, but adding SNP testing substantially increases costs. Implementation issues present in the trial may also significantly increase the cost of risk prediction. Implications: This is the first study to robustly estimate the cost of risk-stratification for breast cancer screening. The cost of risk prediction using questionnaires and automated breast density measurement was low, but full economic evaluations including accurate costs are required to provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. Highlights: Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be a cost-effective use of resources in the United Kingdom.Current estimates of the cost of risk stratification are based on pragmatic assumptions.This study provides estimates of the cost of risk stratification using 3 strategies and when these strategies are implemented perfectly and imperfectly in the health system.The cost of risk stratification is relatively low unless single nucleotide polymorphisms are included in the strategy.

Indexed as

breast cancer screeningmicro-costingrisk-based cancer screeningrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID37152662
PMCPMC10161319
OpenAlexW4372046801

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.