title: Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model.
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.
  
  
  METHODS
  A life table model comparing data from two cohorts.
  
  
  METHODS
  United Kingdom's health service.
  
  
  METHODS
  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.
  
  
  METHODS
  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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors: Departments of Oncology and Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
authors: Paul D P
authors: PD
authors: Pharoah
authors: Bernadette
authors: B
authors: Sewell
authors: Deborah
authors: D
authors: Fitzsimmons
authors: Hayley S
authors: HS
authors: Bennett
authors: Nora
authors: N
authors: Pashayan
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000401:mortality / Q000517:prevention & control*; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004739:England / Q000453:epidemiology; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006801:Humans; D015993:Life Tables; D008327:Mammography / Q000191:economics*; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000191:economics*; D008875:Middle Aged; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D012306:Risk; D014852:Wales / Q000453:epidemiology
references: BMJ. 1999 Oct 23;319(7217):1097-102
references: 10531098
references: Value Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;13(2):215-21
references: 19878494
references: BMJ. 2009 Jul 09;339:b2587
references: 19589821
references: JAMA. 2010 Jan 13;303(2):162-3
references: 20068210
references: Breast Cancer Res. 2012 Jan 09;14(1):R9
references: 22230345
references: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):727-37, W237-42
references: 19920273
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19;(1):CD001877
references: 21249649
references: CMAJ. 2011 Nov 22;183(17):1991-2001
references: 22106103
references: Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1778-86
references: 23117178
references: BMJ. 1998 Aug 8;317(7155):376-9
references: 9694752
references: J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995 Feb;49(1):70-8
references: 7707010