Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 May 9:346:f2618.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2618.

Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model

Affiliations

Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model

Paul D P Pharoah et al. BMJ. .

Erratum in

  • BMJ. 2013;346:f3822

Abstract

Objective: To assess the overall cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme, based on findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and taking into account the uncertainty of associated estimates of benefits, harms, and costs.

Design: A life table model comparing data from two cohorts.

Setting: United Kingdom's health service.

Participants and interventions: 364,500 women aged 50 years-the population of 50 year old women in England and Wales who would be eligible for screening-were followed up for 35 years without screening, compared with a similar cohort who had regular mammographic screening between ages 50 and 70 years and were then followed for another 15 years.

Main outcome measures: Between the cohorts, we compared the number of breast cancer diagnoses, number of deaths from breast cancer, number of deaths from other causes, person years of survival adjusted for health quality, and person years of survival with breast cancer. We also calculated the costs of treating primary and end stage breast cancer, and the costs of screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis explored the effect of uncertainty in key input parameters on the model outputs.

Results: Under the base case scenario (using input parameters derived from the Independent Panel Review), there were 1521 fewer deaths from breast cancer and 2722 overdiagnosed breast cancers. Discounting future costs and benefits at a rate of 3.5% resulted in an additional 6907 person years of survival in the screened cohort, at a cost of 40,946 additional years of survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Screening was associated with 2040 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of £42.5m (€49.8m; $64.7m) in total or £20,800 per QALY gained. The gain in person time survival over 35 years was 9.2 days per person and 2.7 quality adjusted days per person screened. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that this incremental cost effectiveness ratio varied widely across a range of plausible scenarios. Screening was cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained in 2260 (45%) scenarios, but in 588 (12%) scenarios, screening was associated with a reduction in QALYs.

Conclusion: The NHS breast screening programme is only moderately likely to be cost effective at a standard threshold. However, there is substantial uncertainty in the model parameter estimates, and further primary research will be needed for cost effectiveness studies to provide definitive data to inform policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; NP is a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist fellow; no other financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Incremental cost of screening against effectiveness of screening (gain in QALYs) in the 5000 runs of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, under the assumption that screening advances diagnosis by five years during screening and results in a reduction of 10% in incidence when screening stops. Red point=base case scenario for all the input parameters. Points to the right of the dashed line=models with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio better than £20 000 per QALY
None
Fig 2 Cost effectiveness acceptability curve showing probability of the screening programme being cost effective by threshold for cost effectiveness, based on 5000 runs of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and under the assumption that screening advances diagnosis by five years during screening and results in a reduction of 10% in incidence when screening stops
None
Fig 3 Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (£ per QALY) of the base case scenario, by time horizon

Comment in

References

    1. Forrest APM. Breast cancer screening: report to the health ministers of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland by a working group. Department of Health and Social Security, 1987.
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Handbook of cancer prevention: breast cancer screening, volume 7. IARC, 2002.
    1. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:727-37, W237-42. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Woolf SH. The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2010;303:162-3. - PubMed
    1. Tonelli M, Gorber SC, Joffres M, Dickinson J, Singh H, Lewin G, et al. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years. CMAJ 2011;183:1991-2001. - PMC - PubMed