Personalizing Mammography by Breast Density and Other Risk Factors for Breast Cancer: Analysis of Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness

BACKGROUND Current guidelines recommend mammography every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 or 50 years, regardless of individual risk for breast cancer. OBJECTIVE To estimate the cost-effectiveness of mammography by age, breast density, history of breast biopsy, family history of breast cancer, and screening interval. DESIGN Markov microsimulation model. DATA SOURCES Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and the medical literature. TARGET POPULATION U.S. women aged 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 79 years with initial mammography at age 40 years and breast density of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 1 to 4. TIME HORIZON Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE National health payer. INTERVENTION Mammography annually, biennially, or every 3 to 4 years or no mammography. OUTCOME MEASURES Costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and number of women screened over 10 years to prevent 1 death from breast cancer. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS Biennial mammography cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained for women aged 40 to 79 years with BI-RADS category 3 or 4 breast density or aged 50 to 69 years with category 2 density; women aged 60 to 79 years with category 1 density and either a family history of breast cancer or a previous breast biopsy; and all women aged 40 to 79 years with both a family history of breast cancer and a previous breast biopsy, regardless of breast density. Biennial mammography cost less than $50,000 per QALY gained for women aged 40 to 49 years with category 3 or 4 breast density and either a previous breast biopsy or a family history of breast cancer. Annual mammography was not cost-effective for any group, regardless of age or breast density. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Mammography is expensive if the disutility of false-positive mammography results and the costs of detecting nonprogressive and nonlethal invasive cancer are considered. LIMITATION Results are not applicable to carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. CONCLUSION Mammography screening should be personalized on the basis of a woman's age, breast density, history of breast biopsy, family history of breast cancer, and beliefs about the potential benefit and harms of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Eli Lilly, Da Costa Family Foundation for Research in Breast Cancer Prevention of the California Pacific Medical Center, and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

[1]  S Kamen,et al.  The task force. , 1976, Journal of hospital dental practice.

[2]  C. Fox,et al.  Breast-cancer screening. , 1979, Lancet.

[3]  W. Odling-Smee,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer , 1985, The Lancet.

[4]  J. Richardson,et al.  A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. , 1992, Social science & medicine.

[5]  N Urban,et al.  Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. , 1995, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  A Liberati,et al.  Benefits and costs of screening and treatment for early breast cancer. Development of a basic benefit package. , 1995, JAMA.

[7]  N. Devlin,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand. , 1996, Health policy.

[8]  F. Antoñanzas,et al.  Economic evaluation of a mammography-based breast cancer screening programme in Spain , 1997 .

[9]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results program. , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.

[11]  A. Miller Screening for breast cancer with mammography , 2001, The Lancet.

[12]  A. V. von Eschenbach,et al.  NCI remains committed to current mammography guidelines. , 2002, The oncologist.

[13]  Carol H Lee Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy. , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[14]  A. V. Eschenbach,et al.  NCI remains committed to current mammography guidelines. , 2002 .

[15]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  U. S. P. S. T. Force Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. , 2002, Annals of internal medicine.

[17]  B. Levin,et al.  American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer , 2002, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[18]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening Mammography , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  P. Arveux,et al.  Building a model to determine the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in France. , 2003, European journal of cancer care.

[21]  Arild Hervik,et al.  Mammography screening in Norway: results from the first screening round in four counties and cost-effectiveness of a modeled nationwide screening , 2004, Cancer Causes & Control.

[22]  D. Berry,et al.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. , 2005, Breast.

[24]  J. Austoker,et al.  The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review , 2005, Psycho-oncology.

[25]  Bircan Erbas,et al.  The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review , 2006, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[26]  E. Arias,et al.  United States life tables, 2005. , 2010, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[27]  Ingvar Andersson,et al.  Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  M. Johannesson,et al.  A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. , 2006, Health policy.

[29]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[31]  Sylvia K Plevritis,et al.  A natural history model of stage progression applied to breast cancer , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[32]  B. Jönsson,et al.  Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer , 2007, Quality of Life Research.

[33]  H. Welch,et al.  The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[34]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Using Clinical Factors and Mammographic Breast Density to Estimate Breast Cancer Risk: Development and Validation of a New Predictive Model , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[35]  E. Pisano,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. , 2008, Annals of internal medicine.

[36]  Angela Mariotto,et al.  Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[37]  Marvin Zelen,et al.  Clinical Guidelines Annals of Internal Medicine Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening , 2022 .

[38]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[39]  I. Vejborg,et al.  Breast density and outcome of mammography screening: a cohort study , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[40]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2009, Annals of internal medicine.

[41]  H. Nelson,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[42]  L. Tabár,et al.  Effect of Baseline Breast Density on Breast Cancer Incidence, Stage, Mortality, and Screening Parameters: 25-Year Follow-up of a Swedish Mammographic Screening , 2010, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[43]  D. Berry,et al.  Breast Cancer Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms (Annals of Internal Medicine (2009) 151, (738-747)) , 2010 .

[44]  Joseph A Hill United States Life Tables , 2013 .