IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0086858.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness and Harm-Benefit Analyses of Risk-Based Screening Strategies for Breast Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Ester Vilaprinyo
  • Carles Forné
  • Misericordia Carles
  • Maria Sala
  • Roger Pla
  • Xavier Castells
  • Laia Domingo
  • Montserrat Rue
  • the Interval Cancer (INCA) Study Group

Abstract

The one-size-fits-all paradigm in organized screening of breast cancer is shifting towards a personalized approach. The present study has two objectives: 1) To perform an economic evaluation and to assess the harm-benefit ratios of screening strategies that vary in their intensity and interval ages based on breast cancer risk; and 2) To estimate the gain in terms of cost and harm reductions using risk-based screening with respect to the usual practice. We used a probabilistic model and input data from Spanish population registries and screening programs, as well as from clinical studies, to estimate the benefit, harm, and costs over time of 2,624 screening strategies, uniform or risk-based. We defined four risk groups, low, moderate-low, moderate-high and high, based on breast density, family history of breast cancer and personal history of breast biopsy. The risk-based strategies were obtained combining the exam periodicity (annual, biennial, triennial and quinquennial), the starting ages (40, 45 and 50 years) and the ending ages (69 and 74 years) in the four risk groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit ratios were used to select the optimal strategies. Compared to risk-based strategies, the uniform ones result in a much lower benefit for a specific cost. Reductions close to 10% in costs and higher than 20% in false-positive results and overdiagnosed cases were obtained for risk-based strategies. Optimal screening is characterized by quinquennial or triennial periodicities for the low or moderate risk-groups and annual periodicity for the high-risk group. Risk-based strategies can reduce harm and costs. It is necessary to develop accurate measures of individual risk and to work on how to implement risk-based screening strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ester Vilaprinyo & Carles Forné & Misericordia Carles & Maria Sala & Roger Pla & Xavier Castells & Laia Domingo & Montserrat Rue & the Interval Cancer (INCA) Study Group, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness and Harm-Benefit Analyses of Risk-Based Screening Strategies for Breast Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0086858
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0086858
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0086858&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0086858?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Turgay Ayer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Natasha K. Stout, 2012. "OR Forum---A POMDP Approach to Personalize Mammography Screening Decisions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1019-1034, October.
    2. Sandra J. Lee & Marvin Zelen, 2008. "Mortality Modeling of Early Detection Programs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 386-395, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nikolai Mühlberger & Gaby Sroczynski & Artemisa Gogollari & Beate Jahn & Nora Pashayan & Ewout Steyerberg & Martin Widschwendter & Uwe Siebert, 2021. "Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1311-1344, November.
    2. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elliot Lee & Mariel Lavieri & Michael Volk & Yongcai Xu, 2015. "Applying reinforcement learning techniques to detect hepatocellular carcinoma under limited screening capacity," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 363-375, September.
    2. Eike Nohdurft & Elisa Long & Stefan Spinler, 2017. "Was Angelina Jolie Right? Optimizing Cancer Prevention Strategies Among BRCA Mutation Carriers," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 139-169, September.
    3. repec:bla:istatr:v:83:y:2015:i:3:p:493-510 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Robert Kraig Helmeczi & Can Kavaklioglu & Mucahit Cevik & Davood Pirayesh Neghab, 2023. "A multi-objective constrained partially observable Markov decision process model for breast cancer screening," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 1-42, June.
    5. Malek Ebadi & Raha Akhavan-Tabatabaei, 2021. "Personalized Cotesting Policies for Cervical Cancer Screening: A POMDP Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Tianhu Deng & Zuo-Jun Max Shen & J. George Shanthikumar, 2014. "Statistical Learning of Service-Dependent Demand in a Multiperiod Newsvendor Setting," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1064-1076, October.
    7. Dan Andrei Iancu & Nikolaos Trichakis & Do Young Yoon, 2021. "Monitoring with Limited Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4233-4251, July.
    8. Junbo Son & Yeongin Kim & Shiyu Zhou, 2022. "Alerting patients via health information system considering trust-dependent patient adherence," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 245-269, December.
    9. Katherine Bobroske & Michael Freeman & Lawrence Huan & Anita Cattrell & Stefan Scholtes, 2022. "Curbing the Opioid Epidemic at Its Root: The Effect of Provider Discordance After Opioid Initiation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 2003-2015, March.
    10. Jue Wang, 2016. "Minimizing the false alarm rate in systems with transient abnormality," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(4), pages 320-334, June.
    11. M. Reza Skandari & Steven M. Shechter & Nadia Zalunardo, 2015. "Optimal Vascular Access Choice for Patients on Hemodialysis," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 608-619, October.
    12. Anirudh Tomer & Daan Nieboer & Monique J. Roobol & Ewout W. Steyerberg & Dimitris Rizopoulos, 2019. "Personalized schedules for surveillance of low‐risk prostate cancer patients," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 153-162, March.
    13. Hessam Bavafa & Sergei Savin & Christian Terwiesch, 2021. "Customizing Primary Care Delivery Using E‐Visits," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4306-4327, November.
    14. Christian Wernz & Yongjia Song & Danny R. Hughes, 2021. "How hospitals can improve their public quality metrics: a decision-theoretic model," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 702-715, December.
    15. Turgay Ayer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Natasha K. Stout & Elizabeth S. Burnside, 2016. "Heterogeneity in Women’s Adherence and Its Role in Optimal Breast Cancer Screening Policies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1339-1362, May.
    16. Li, Y. & Zhu, M. & Klein, R. & Kong, N., 2014. "Using a partially observable Markov chain model to assess colonoscopy screening strategies – A cohort study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 313-326.
    17. Mehmet U. S. Ayvaci & Oguzhan Alagoz & Elizabeth S. Burnside, 2012. "The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 600-617, October.
    18. Otten, Maarten & Timmer, Judith & Witteveen, Annemieke, 2020. "Stratified breast cancer follow-up using a continuous state partially observable Markov decision process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 464-474.
    19. Mintz, Yonatan & Aswani, Anil & Kaminsky, Philip & Flowers, Elena & Fukuoka, Yoshimi, 2023. "Behavioral analytics for myopic agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 310(2), pages 793-811.
    20. Li, Weiyu & Denton, Brian T. & Morgan, Todd M., 2023. "Optimizing active surveillance for prostate cancer using partially observable Markov decision processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 386-399.
    21. Mehmet A. Ergun & Ali Hajjar & Oguzhan Alagoz & Murtuza Rampurwala, 2022. "Optimal breast cancer risk reduction policies tailored to personal risk level," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 363-388, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0086858. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.