Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30–49

  • Original paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.C.: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Government Actuarial Department figures. Available at http://www.gad.gov.uk/Life_Tables/eoltable.htm

  9. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Law, J.: Risk and benefit associated with radiation dose in breast screening programmes. Br. J. Radiol. 68, 870–876 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. European Commission (1996) ASQRAD—assessment system for the quantification of radiation detriment (EUR 16644, CEPN-L95/2)

  19. Young, K.C., Faulkner, K., Wall, B., et al.: Review of radiation risk in breast screening. NHSBSP report no. 54 (2003)

  20. Department of Health Reference Costs. Available at http://www.dh.gov. uk/PolicyAndGuidance/OrganisationPolicy/FinanceAndPlanning/NHSReferenceC osts/fs/en (2004)

  21. Department of Health Health Survey for England. Available at http://www.dh.gov. uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PublishedSurvey/HealthSurveyForEngland/fs/e n

  22. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. NICE Social Value Judgements report. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=svjguidance

  24. Fenwick, E., Byford, S.: A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br. J. Psychiatr. 187, 106–108 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard P. A. Norman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-007-0042-9

Keywords

Navigation