ArticleHealth economics review2025
Cost-effectiveness of expanding the target population of biennial screening for breast cancer from ages 50-69 to 45 and/or 74: A cohort modelling study in the Finnish setting.
Article in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Cost-Effectiveness of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Paediatrics, T1D and T2D Adults Across Four Nordic Countries.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Extension of the mammographic screening programme in Italy: cost-benefit analysis of early diagnosis in the 45-49 and 70-74 age groups.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundWithin Finland's breast cancer screening program, all women aged 50-69 are invited to biennial screening. Current European guidelines recommend screening in ages 45-49 and 70-74 conditional upon, inter alia, demonstrated context-specific cost-effectiveness. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of expanding the target population of biennial screening to ages 45 and/or 74, compared to the current national breast cancer screening strategy, in the Finnish setting.
methodsScreening strategies' costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), aggregated over a lifetime horizon for the population simulated through a decision-analytic model, allow for comparison through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The model, using a Markov cohort simulation approach, was adapted to the cancer stage classification system used by the Finnish Cancer Registry (FCR) and calibrated to observed metrics in the Finnish female population. The analysis was conducted from a limited societal perspective, using a discount rate of 3% for costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess decision uncertainty, using an implicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold range of €25 000-50 000 per incremental QALY.
resultsCompared to the current national screening strategy, both strategies with a starting age of 45 were cost-effective at the WTP-threshold of €50 000 per incremental QALY. Biennial screening in ages 45-69 was also cost-effective at €25 000 per QALY and demonstrated the highest probability of cost-effectiveness of all screening strategies over the whole WTP-threshold range of €25 000-50 000 per QALY. Biennial screening in ages 50-74 was dominated by all strategies over the threshold range.
conclusionsExpanding the national screening strategy target population age is likely to produce net health benefits to acceptable costs, insofar as women aged 45-49 are covered by the expansion. Only expanding the target population to age 74 is unlikely to be cost-effective, given a WTP-threshold range of €25 000-50 000 per incremental QALY.
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.