Premium
Cost‐effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in T he N etherlands
Author(s) -
Sankatsing Valérie D.V.,
Heijnsdijk Eveline A.M.,
van Luijt Paula A.,
van Ravesteyn Nicolien T.,
Fracheboud Jacques,
de Koning Harry J.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
international journal of cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.475
H-Index - 234
eISSN - 1097-0215
pISSN - 0020-7136
DOI - 10.1002/ijc.29572
Subject(s) - medicine , mammography , demography , breast cancer , breast cancer screening , gynecology , cancer , sociology
In the Netherlands, routine mammography screening starts at age 50. This starting age may have to be reconsidered because of the increasing breast cancer incidence among women aged 40 to 49 and the recent implementation of digital mammography. We assessed the cost‐effectiveness of digital mammography screening that starts between age 40 and 49, using a microsimulation model. Women were screened before age 50, in addition to the current programme (biennial 50–74). Screening strategies varied in starting age (between 40 and 50) and frequency (annual or biennial). The numbers of breast cancers diagnosed, life‐years gained (LYG) and breast cancer deaths averted were predicted and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare screening scenarios. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 (current strategy) was estimated to gain 157 life years per 1,000 women with lifelong follow‐up, compared to a situation without screening, and cost €3,376/LYG (3.5% discounted). Additional screening increased the number of LYG, compared to no screening, ranging from 168 to 242. The costs to generate one additional LYG ( i.e ., ICER), comparing a screening strategy to the less intensive alternative, were estimated at €5,329 (biennial 48–74 vs . current strategy), €7,628 (biennial 45–74 vs . biennial 48–74), €10,826 (biennial 40–74 vs . biennial 45–74) and €18,759 (annual 40–49 + biennial 50–74 vs . biennial 40–74). Other strategies (49 + biennial 50–74 and annual 45–49 + biennial 50–74) resulted in less favourable ICERs. These findings show that extending the Dutch screening programme by screening between age 40 and 49 is cost‐effective, particularly for biennial strategies.