Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.7)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2017, vol. 26, nr 2, March-April, p. 259–262

doi: 10.17219/acem/61841

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Ductal carcinomas in situ and invasive cancers detected on screening mammography: Cost-effectiveness of initial and subsequent rounds of population-based program 2007–2014

Bartłomiej Szynglarewicz1,2,A,B,C,D, Rafał Matkowski1,2,A,E,F

1 Department of Surgical Oncology, and Regional Coordinating Center for Screening Programs, Lower Silesia Oncology Center – Regional Comprehensive Cancer Center, Wrocław, Poland

2 Department of Oncology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Abstract

Background. Potential benefits of screening need to be carefully balanced against the financial burden for the national health care system.
Objectives. To assess the cost-effectiveness of population-based mammographic screening in the 3-million region of Lower Silesia (Poland) after initial and 3 subsequent rounds.
Material and Methods. Data was collected in a prospective manner using the databases of the official computer system for the monitoring of prophylaxis programs (SIMP), National Health Fund (Lower Silesia Regional Branch) and the Lower Silesia Cancer Registry. The expenses from each analyzed year were obtained from the Regional Coordinating Center for Screening Programs. The number of screen-detected and pathologically proven invasive and ductal in situ cancers was calculated. Costs of cancer detection were measured, converted into US dollars (USD), and expressed in 2015 USD using the comparison of purchasing power of money calculated with the Consumer Price Index.
Results. The total expense for the screening program in the initial round (2007–2008), first (2009–2010), second (2011–2012) and third (2013–2014) subsequent rounds was 4 732 383, 6 043 509, 6 484 834, and 5 900 793 USD whereas the number of cancer detected was 1049, 987, 1312, and 1070. The costeffectiveness ratio obtained in the program for each year was 4511, 6123, 4943, and 5515 USD per cancer found. The average cost of breast cancer detection in screening program in the region of Lower Silesia in years 2007–2014 was 5243 USD.
Conclusion. The low cost of breast cancer detection in mammographic screening program makes it applicable for the health care systems in emerging economies.

Key words

breast cancer, mammographic screening, cost-effectiveness

References (19)

  1. Maciejczyk A. New prognostic factors in breast cancer. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2013;22:5–15.
  2. Wojnar A, Puła B, Podhorska-Okołów M, Dzięgiel P. Discrepancies between HER2 assessment form core needle biopsies and surgical speci-mens of invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2013;22:27–31.
  3. Zelle SG, Baltussen RM. Economic analyses of breast cancer control in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2013;2:20.
  4. Coleman MP, Forman D, Bryant H, et al. Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995–2007 (the Interna-tional Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): An analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet. 2011;377:127–138.
  5. DeSantis C, Siegel R, Bandi P, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics 2011. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:409–418.
  6. Levi F, Lucchini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C. Continuing declines in cancer mortality in the European Union. Ann Oncol. 2008;18:593–595.
  7. Szynglarewicz B, Matkowski R, Kasprzak P, et al. The effectiveness of population-based breast cancer screening programme. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2009;26:117–120.
  8. Matkowski R, Szynglarewicz B. First report of introducing population-based breast cancer screening in Poland: Experience of the 3-million population region of Lower Silesia. Cancer Epidemiol. 2011;35:e111–115.
  9. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holand R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition – summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:614–622.
  10. De Koning HJ. Breast cancer screening: Cost-effective in practice? Eur J Radiol. 2000;33: 32–37.
  11. Szynglarewicz B, Matkowski R. Low cost of cancer detection in the first year of mammographic screening in Poland. Breast. 2011;20:585.
  12. van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Koning HJ, Boer R, van der Maas PJ. How cost-effective is breast cancer screening in different EC countries? Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A:1663–1668.
  13. Spagnolo G, Zappa M, Paci E, Giorgi D, Rosselli del Turco M. Evaluation of the costs of mammographic screening program in the city of Flor-ence. Epidemiol Prev. 1995;19:330–337.
  14. Plans P, Casademont L, Salleras L. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in Spain. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:
  15. Burnside E, Belkora J, Esserman L. The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States. Clin Breast Cancer. 2001;2:145–152.
  16. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. Needle core biopsy guided with mammography: A study of cost-effectiveness. Radiology. 1994;190:217–222.
  17. Liberman L, Fahs MC, Dershaw DD, et al. Impact of stereotaxic core biopsy on cost of diagnosis. Radiology. 1995;19:633–637.
  18. Rubin E, Mennemeyer ST, Desmond RA, et al. Reducing the cost of diagnosis of breast carcinoma: impact of ultrasound and imaging-guided biopsies on a clinical breast practice. Cancer. 2001;91:324–332.
  19. Szynglarewicz B, Matkowski R, Kasprzak P, et al. Diagnostic service effectiveness during the first year of breast cancer screening in the re-gion of Lower Silesia. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2008;17:661–666.
© Wroclaw Medical University