Abstract
Recent evidence has investigated the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in younger women with a BRCA1 mutation. However, this evidence has not been contrasted with existing cost-effectiveness standards to determine whether screening is appropriate, given limited societal resources. We constructed a Markov model investigating surveillance tools (mammography, MRI, both in parallel) under a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. The key benefit of MRI is that increased sensitivity leads to early detection, and improved prognosis. For a 30- to 39-year-old cohort, the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of mammography relative to no screening was £5,200. The addition of MRI to this costs £13,486 per QALY. For a 40- to 49-year-old cohort, the corresponding values were £2,913 and £7,781. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis supported the cost-effectiveness of the parallel approach of mammography and MRI. It is necessary to extend this analysis beyond BRCA1 carriers within this age group, and also to other age groups.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Griebsch, I., Brown, J., Boggis, C. et al.: Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs. X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 95, 801–810 (2006)
Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.C.: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)
Leach, M.O., Boggis, C.R., Dixon, A.K., et al.: Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365, 1769–1778 (2005)
Kerlikowske, K., Grady, D., Barclay, J., et al.: Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276, 33–38 (1996)
McIntosh, A., Shaw, C., Evans, G., et al.: Clinical guidelines and evidence review for the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer. Royal College of General Practitioners/University of Sheffield, London (2004)
Norman, R., Ritchie, G., Evans, D.G., et al.: Clinical guidelines and evidence review for familial breast cancer: the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer in primary, secondary and tertiary care (partial update): routine surveillance using magnetic resonance imaging. Royal College of General Practitioners, London (2006)
Plevritis, S.K., Kurian, A.W., Sigal, B.M., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 295, 2374–84 (2006)
Government Actuarial Department figures. Available at http://www.gad.gov.uk/Life_Tables/eoltable.htm
Pisano, E.D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., et al.: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New Engl. J. Med. 353, 1773–1778 (2005)
Antoniou, A.C., Pharoah, P.D., Narod, S.: Breast and ovarian cancer risks to carriers of the BRCA1 5382insC and 185delAG and BRCA2 6174delT mutations: a combined analysis of 22 population based studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 1117–1130 (2003)
Coleman, M.P., Babb, P., Quinn, M.J., et al.: Socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival in England and Wales. Cancer 91, 208–216 (2001)
Cortesi, L., Chiuri, V.E., Ruscelli, S., et al.: Prognosis of screen-detected breast cancers: results of a population based study. BMC Cancer 6, 17 (2006)
Jensen, A.R., Garne, J.P., Storm, H.H., et al.: Stage and survival in breast cancer patients in screened and non-screened Danish and Swedish populations. Acta Oncol. 42, 701–709 (2003)
Yassin, M.M., Peel, A.L.G., Thompson, W.D., et al.: Does screen-detected breast cancer have better survival than symptomatic breast cancer? Asian J. Surg. 26, 101–107 (2003)
Berrington de Gonzalez, A., Reeves, G.: Mammographic screening before age 50 in the UK: comparison of the radiation risks with mortality benefits. Br. J. Cancer 93, 590–596 (2005)
Law, J.: Risk and benefit associated with radiation dose in breast screening programmes. Br. J. Radiol. 68, 870–876 (1995)
Preston, D.L., Mattson, A., Holmberg, E., et al.: Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of eight cohorts. Radiat. Res. 158, 220–235 (2002)
European Commission (1996) ASQRAD—assessment system for the quantification of radiation detriment (EUR 16644, CEPN-L95/2)
Young, K.C., Faulkner, K., Wall, B., et al.: Review of radiation risk in breast screening. NHSBSP report no. 54 (2003)
Department of Health Reference Costs. Available at http://www.dh.gov. uk/PolicyAndGuidance/OrganisationPolicy/FinanceAndPlanning/NHSReferenceC osts/fs/en (2004)
Department of Health Health Survey for England. Available at http://www.dh.gov. uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PublishedSurvey/HealthSurveyForEngland/fs/e n
Johnston, K., Brown, J., Gerard, K., et al.: Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc. Sci. Med. 47, 213–222 (1998)
NICE Social Value Judgements report. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=svjguidance
Fenwick, E., Byford, S.: A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br. J. Psychiatr. 187, 106–108 (2005)
Acknowledgements
We thank the NICE Familial Breast Cancer Guideline Development Group, and Ingolf Greibsch and the MARIBS team, for the supply of various costing figures. We also thank Jo Lord, Anne Spencer, Kees van Gool and the three anonymous referees for their helpful advice on previous drafts. This work was funded through the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guideline Development Process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norman, R.P.A., Evans, D.G., Easton, D.F. et al. The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30–49. Eur J Health Econ 8, 137–144 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-007-0042-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-007-0042-9