» Articles » PMID: 33892705

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of a Polygenic Risk Tailored Breast Cancer Screening Programme in Singapore

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2021 Apr 24
PMID 33892705
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a breast cancer screening programme that incorporates genetic testing using breast cancer associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), against the current biennial mammogram-only screening programme to aid in its implementation into the current programme in Singapore.

Methods: A Markov model was used to compare the costs and health outcomes of the current screening programme, against a polygenic risk-tailored screening programme, which can advise a long-term screening strategy depending on the individual's polygenic risk. The model took the perspective of the healthcare system, with a time horizon of 40 years, following women from the age of 35 to 74. Epidemiological and cost data were taken from Asian studies, and an annual discount rate of 3% was used. The model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated from the difference in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Scenarios with varying risk thresholds for each polygenic risk group were examined. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.

Results: The ICER for a polygenic risk-tailored breast cancer screening programme, compared with the current biennial mammogram-only screening programme, was - 3713.80 SGD/QALY, with incremental costs < 0 and incremental effects > 0. The scenario analysis of different polygenic risk cutoffs showed that the ICERs remain negative, with all ICERs falling within the south-east quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, indicating that tailored screening is more cost effective than mammogram-only screening, with lower costs and higher QALYs to be gained. This suggests that a polygenic risk-tailored breast cancer screening programme is cost effective, entailing lower cost than the current mammogram-only programme, while causing no additional harm to women.

Conclusion: Results from this cost-effectiveness analysis show that polygenic risk-tailored screening is cost effective with an ICER of - 3713.80 SGD/QALY. Tailored screening remains cost effective even across varying percentile cutoffs for each risk group. While the results look promising for incorporating polygenic risk into the current breast cancer screening programme, further studies should be conducted to address various limitations.

Citing Articles

Analysis of the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, MRI, and combined examination in benign and malignant breast tumors.

Ma D, Wang C, Li J, Hao X, Zhu Y, Gao Z Front Oncol. 2025; 15:1494862.

PMID: 39949747 PMC: 11821579. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1494862.


Strategies for Cost-Effectiveness in Sustainable Quality Healthcare Delivery in Emerging Economies: The Case of Healthcare Professionals Development in South Africa.

Igbo F, Gossett K, Nattress D Healthcare (Basel). 2025; 13(1.

PMID: 39791643 PMC: 11719501. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13010036.


Polygenic risk-stratified screening for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in high-risk endemic areas of China: a cost-effectiveness study.

Yang D, Miller J, Xue W, Tang M, Lei L, Zheng Y Front Public Health. 2024; 12:1375533.

PMID: 38756891 PMC: 11097958. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1375533.


Comprehensive Inherited Risk Estimation for Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening in Women.

Mars N, Kerminen S, Tamlander M, Pirinen M, Jakkula E, Aaltonen K J Clin Oncol. 2024; 42(13):1477-1487.

PMID: 38422475 PMC: 11095905. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00295.


Recent advances in polygenic scores: translation, equitability, methods and FAIR tools.

Xiang R, Kelemen M, Xu Y, Harris L, Parkinson H, Inouye M Genome Med. 2024; 16(1):33.

PMID: 38373998 PMC: 10875792. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-024-01304-9.


References
1.
Ho P, Bok C, Mohd Ishak H, Lim L, Liu J, Wong F . Factors associated with false-positive mammography at first screen in an Asian population. PLoS One. 2019; 14(3):e0213615. PMC: 6411141. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213615. View

2.
Pashayan N, Morris S, Gilbert F, Pharoah P . Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model. JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4(11):1504-1510. PMC: 6230256. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1901. View

3.
Chen S, Fann J, Sipeky C, Yang T, Chiu S, Yen A . Risk Prediction of Prostate Cancer with Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Prostate Specific Antigen. J Urol. 2018; 201(3):486-495. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.10.015. View

4.
Tabriz A, Neslund-Dudas C, Turner K, Rivera M, Reuland D, Lafata J . How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening. Chest. 2020; 159(1):413-425. PMC: 7893305. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.078. View

5.
de Toro-Martin J, Guenard F, Tchernof A, Perusse L, Marceau S, Vohl M . Polygenic risk score for predicting weight loss after bariatric surgery. JCI Insight. 2018; 3(17). PMC: 6171810. DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.122011. View