Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk.
Adult
BRCA1 Protein
/ genetics
BRCA2 Protein
/ genetics
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Cost-Benefit Analysis
/ economics
Early Detection of Cancer
/ economics
Female
Genetic Predisposition to Disease
/ genetics
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ economics
Middle Aged
Risk Factors
Tumor Suppressor Protein p53
/ genetics
Journal
JAMA oncology
ISSN: 2374-2445
Titre abrégé: JAMA Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101652861
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2020
01 09 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
31
7
2020
medline:
7
2
2021
entrez:
31
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce. To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied. Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography). Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied. This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer. This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32729887
pii: 2768633
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2922
pmc: PMC7393584
doi:
Substances chimiques
BRCA1 Protein
0
BRCA1 protein, human
0
BRCA2 Protein
0
BRCA2 protein, human
0
TP53 protein, human
0
Tumor Suppressor Protein p53
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1381-1389Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Soc Sci Med. 2019 May;228:142-154
pubmed: 30913528
Int J Cancer. 2013 Jul;133(1):156-63
pubmed: 23292943
Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Jun;131(6):961-72
pubmed: 2188501
Br J Cancer. 2011 Mar 29;104(7):1214-20
pubmed: 21364575
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 28;381(22):2091-2102
pubmed: 31774954
CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr;57(2):75-89
pubmed: 17392385
Health Econ. 2015 Apr;24(4):481-90
pubmed: 24590819
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
Int J Cancer. 1991 Oct 21;49(4):538-44
pubmed: 1917155
N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 4;374(5):454-68
pubmed: 26840135
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32(22):2304-10
pubmed: 24958821
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Aug;147(1):15-23
pubmed: 25104440
Br J Cancer. 2004 Jul 5;91(1):69-76
pubmed: 15199386
BMJ. 2015 Oct 06;351:h4901
pubmed: 26442924
Int J Cancer. 2015 Oct 15;137(8):1990-9
pubmed: 25895135
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Sep 4;105(17):1314-21
pubmed: 23940285
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 Oct;10(5):553-66
pubmed: 20950071
Radiat Res. 2002 Aug;158(2):220-35
pubmed: 12105993
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Mar;198(3):W292-5
pubmed: 22358028
BMC Cancer. 2012 Oct 02;12:440
pubmed: 23031619
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):227-36
pubmed: 17229950
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Oct;63(7):1720-31
pubmed: 16781037
JAMA. 2012 Apr 4;307(13):1394-404
pubmed: 22474203
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Jun 7;98(11):774-82
pubmed: 16757702
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug;20(8):1136-1147
pubmed: 31221620
Qual Life Res. 2007 Aug;16(6):1073-81
pubmed: 17468943
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):343-52
pubmed: 27325326
Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165-75
pubmed: 12355001