» Articles » PMID: 27919292

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Ovarian Cancer Amongst Postmenopausal Women: a Model-based Economic Evaluation

Overview
Journal BMC Med
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2016 Dec 7
PMID 27919292
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) was the biggest ovarian cancer screening trial to date. A non-significant effect of screening on ovarian cancer was reported, but the authors noted a potential delayed effect of screening, and suggested the need for four years further follow-up. There are no UK-based cost-effectiveness analyses of ovarian cancer screening. Hence we assessed the lifetime outcomes associated with, and the cost-effectiveness of, screening for ovarian cancer in the UK, along with the value of further research.

Methods: We performed a model-based economic evaluation. Effectiveness data were taken from UKCTOCS, which considered strategies of multimodal screening (MMS), ultrasound screening (USS) and no screening. We conducted systematic reviews to identify the remaining model inputs, and performed a rigorous and transparent prospective evaluation of different methods for extrapolating the effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality. We considered costs to the UK healthcare system and measured effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We used value of information methods to estimate the value of further research.

Results: Over a lifetime, MMS and USS were estimated to be both more expensive and more effective than no screening. USS was dominated by MMS, being both more expensive and less effective. Compared with no screening, MMS cost on average £419 more (95% confidence interval £255 to £578), and generated 0.047 more QALYs (0.002 to 0.088). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing MMS with no screening was £8864 per QALY (£2600 to £51,576). Alternative extrapolation methods increased the ICER, with the highest value being £36,769 (£13,888 to dominated by no screening). Using the UKCTOCS trial horizon, both MMS and USS were dominated by no screening, as they produced fewer QALYs at a greater cost. The value of research into eliminating all uncertainty in long-term effectiveness was estimated to be worth up to £20 million, or approximately £5 million for four years follow-up.

Conclusions: Screening for ovarian cancer with MMS is both more effective and more expensive than not screening. Compared to national willingness to pay thresholds, lifetime cost-effectiveness is promising, but there remains considerable uncertainty regarding extrapolated long-term effectiveness.

Citing Articles

Decision-analytic evaluation of the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in German women with BRCA-1/2 mutations.

Hallsson L, Sroczynski G, Engel J, Siebert U BMC Cancer. 2023; 23(1):590.

PMID: 37365514 PMC: 10294312. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10956-6.


Accuracy of the risk of malignancy index-I in diagnosing ovarian malignancy in menopausal women.

Radwan A, Taema M Prz Menopauzalny. 2023; 22(1):1-5.

PMID: 37206673 PMC: 10189665. DOI: 10.5114/pm.2023.126435.


Mortality impact, risks, and benefits of general population screening for ovarian cancer: the UKCTOCS randomised controlled trial.

Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Ryan A, Kalsi J, Singh N Health Technol Assess. 2023; :1-81.

PMID: 37183782 PMC: 10542866. DOI: 10.3310/BHBR5832.


Hereditary Ovarian Cancer: Towards a Cost-Effective Prevention Strategy.

Ghose A, Bolina A, Mahajan I, Raza S, Clarke M, Pal A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(19).

PMID: 36231355 PMC: 9565024. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912057.


Morphological parameters of ovarian masses and accuracy of the risk of malignancy index in diagnosing ovarian malignancy.

Adilgereyeva A, Abdelazim I, Zhurabekova G, El-Ghazaly T Prz Menopauzalny. 2022; 21(2):81-91.

PMID: 36199743 PMC: 9528815. DOI: 10.5114/pm.2022.116402.


References
1.
Rauh-Hain J, Krivak T, Carmen M, Olawaiye A . Ovarian cancer screening and early detection in the general population. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 4(1):15-21. PMC: 3100094. View

2.
Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A . Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10(4):327-40. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9. View

3.
Jacobs I, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi J . Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 387(10022):945-956. PMC: 4779792. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6. View

4.
Strong M, Oakley J, Brennan A, Breeze P . Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample: A Fast, Nonparametric Regression-Based Method. Med Decis Making. 2015; 35(5):570-83. PMC: 4471064. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15575286. View

5.
Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S . Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(14):1-503, v-vi. PMC: 4781395. DOI: 10.3310/hta19140. View