Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 2/2007

01-06-2007 | Original paper

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

Authors: Richard P. A. Norman, D. Gareth Evans, Douglas F. Easton, Kenneth C. Young

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 2/2007

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.C.: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996) Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.C.: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)
3.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
4.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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) 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)
6.
go back to reference 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) 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)
7.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
9.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
10.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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) 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)
13.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
15.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Law, J.: Risk and benefit associated with radiation dose in breast screening programmes. Br. J. Radiol. 68, 870–876 (1995)CrossRef Law, J.: Risk and benefit associated with radiation dose in breast screening programmes. Br. J. Radiol. 68, 870–876 (1995)CrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
18.
go back to reference European Commission (1996) ASQRAD—assessment system for the quantification of radiation detriment (EUR 16644, CEPN-L95/2) European Commission (1996) ASQRAD—assessment system for the quantification of radiation detriment (EUR 16644, CEPN-L95/2)
19.
go back to reference Young, K.C., Faulkner, K., Wall, B., et al.: Review of radiation risk in breast screening. NHSBSP report no. 54 (2003) Young, K.C., Faulkner, K., Wall, B., et al.: Review of radiation risk in breast screening. NHSBSP report no. 54 (2003)
22.
go back to reference 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)CrossRef 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)CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Fenwick, E., Byford, S.: A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br. J. Psychiatr. 187, 106–108 (2005)CrossRef Fenwick, E., Byford, S.: A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br. J. Psychiatr. 187, 106–108 (2005)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30–49
Authors
Richard P. A. Norman
D. Gareth Evans
Douglas F. Easton
Kenneth C. Young
Publication date
01-06-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 2/2007
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-007-0042-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2007

The European Journal of Health Economics 2/2007 Go to the issue

Pricing and Reimbursement Systems in Europe

Discussion point: should governments buy drug patents?