Surveillance following breast cancer

is it cost-effective?

L. Ternent, G. MacLennan, S. D. Heys, F. Gilbert, L. Vale, Mammographic Surveillance HTA Grp

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction
There is debate about the role and optimal organisation of follow-up following treatment for primary breast cancer. We estimated using the best available evidence whether early detection by surveillance of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) and metachronous contralateral breast cancer (MCBC) was cost-effective.

Methods
An economic model compared alternative surveillance strategies involving mammographic surveillance and/or clinical follow-up performed at differing surveillance intervals. The model structure was based upon discussions with the clinical experts involved in the study, a survey of UK breast surgeons and radiologists, and the literature. Data to populate the model came from a series of systematic reviews and an analysis of the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit Breast Cancer Registry. Results of the model were presented as incremental cost per QALYs - a measure of relative efficiency.

Results
The surveillance strategy most likely to be cost-effective was mammographic surveillance alone provided every 12 to 24 months. This result held for women who had previously received either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy. Results were sensitive to primary tumour characteristics (size, grade, nodal involvement) used to define the likelihoods of developing an IBTR or MCBC. More intensive follow-up of women with higher likelihood of developing IBTR or MCBC may be worthwhile.

Conclusions
Our conclusions remain tentative due to the paucity of the underlying evidence base but suggest surveillance is likely to improve survival, with a strategy of mammography alone every 12 to 24 months appearing cost-effective.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberP5
Pages (from-to)5-6
Number of pages2
JournalBreast Cancer Research
Volume12
Issue numberSuppl. 3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Cite this

Ternent, L., MacLennan, G., Heys, S. D., Gilbert, F., Vale, L., & Mammographic Surveillance HTA Grp (2010). Surveillance following breast cancer: is it cost-effective? Breast Cancer Research, 12(Suppl. 3), 5-6. [P5]. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2658

Surveillance following breast cancer : is it cost-effective? / Ternent, L.; MacLennan, G.; Heys, S. D.; Gilbert, F.; Vale, L.; Mammographic Surveillance HTA Grp.

In: Breast Cancer Research, Vol. 12, No. Suppl. 3, P5, 2010, p. 5-6.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ternent, L, MacLennan, G, Heys, SD, Gilbert, F, Vale, L & Mammographic Surveillance HTA Grp 2010, 'Surveillance following breast cancer: is it cost-effective?', Breast Cancer Research, vol. 12, no. Suppl. 3, P5, pp. 5-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2658
Ternent L, MacLennan G, Heys SD, Gilbert F, Vale L, Mammographic Surveillance HTA Grp. Surveillance following breast cancer: is it cost-effective? Breast Cancer Research. 2010;12(Suppl. 3):5-6. P5. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2658
Ternent, L. ; MacLennan, G. ; Heys, S. D. ; Gilbert, F. ; Vale, L. ; Mammographic Surveillance HTA Grp. / Surveillance following breast cancer : is it cost-effective?. In: Breast Cancer Research. 2010 ; Vol. 12, No. Suppl. 3. pp. 5-6.
@article{8a135d6a80874ab19925ee542db45d02,
title = "Surveillance following breast cancer: is it cost-effective?",
abstract = "IntroductionThere is debate about the role and optimal organisation of follow-up following treatment for primary breast cancer. We estimated using the best available evidence whether early detection by surveillance of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) and metachronous contralateral breast cancer (MCBC) was cost-effective.MethodsAn economic model compared alternative surveillance strategies involving mammographic surveillance and/or clinical follow-up performed at differing surveillance intervals. The model structure was based upon discussions with the clinical experts involved in the study, a survey of UK breast surgeons and radiologists, and the literature. Data to populate the model came from a series of systematic reviews and an analysis of the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit Breast Cancer Registry. Results of the model were presented as incremental cost per QALYs - a measure of relative efficiency.ResultsThe surveillance strategy most likely to be cost-effective was mammographic surveillance alone provided every 12 to 24 months. This result held for women who had previously received either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy. Results were sensitive to primary tumour characteristics (size, grade, nodal involvement) used to define the likelihoods of developing an IBTR or MCBC. More intensive follow-up of women with higher likelihood of developing IBTR or MCBC may be worthwhile.ConclusionsOur conclusions remain tentative due to the paucity of the underlying evidence base but suggest surveillance is likely to improve survival, with a strategy of mammography alone every 12 to 24 months appearing cost-effective.",
author = "L. Ternent and G. MacLennan and Heys, {S. D.} and F. Gilbert and L. Vale and {Mammographic Surveillance HTA Grp}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1186/bcr2658",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "5--6",
journal = "Breast Cancer Research",
issn = "1465-5411",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "Suppl. 3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surveillance following breast cancer

T2 - is it cost-effective?

AU - Ternent, L.

AU - MacLennan, G.

AU - Heys, S. D.

AU - Gilbert, F.

AU - Vale, L.

AU - Mammographic Surveillance HTA Grp

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - IntroductionThere is debate about the role and optimal organisation of follow-up following treatment for primary breast cancer. We estimated using the best available evidence whether early detection by surveillance of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) and metachronous contralateral breast cancer (MCBC) was cost-effective.MethodsAn economic model compared alternative surveillance strategies involving mammographic surveillance and/or clinical follow-up performed at differing surveillance intervals. The model structure was based upon discussions with the clinical experts involved in the study, a survey of UK breast surgeons and radiologists, and the literature. Data to populate the model came from a series of systematic reviews and an analysis of the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit Breast Cancer Registry. Results of the model were presented as incremental cost per QALYs - a measure of relative efficiency.ResultsThe surveillance strategy most likely to be cost-effective was mammographic surveillance alone provided every 12 to 24 months. This result held for women who had previously received either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy. Results were sensitive to primary tumour characteristics (size, grade, nodal involvement) used to define the likelihoods of developing an IBTR or MCBC. More intensive follow-up of women with higher likelihood of developing IBTR or MCBC may be worthwhile.ConclusionsOur conclusions remain tentative due to the paucity of the underlying evidence base but suggest surveillance is likely to improve survival, with a strategy of mammography alone every 12 to 24 months appearing cost-effective.

AB - IntroductionThere is debate about the role and optimal organisation of follow-up following treatment for primary breast cancer. We estimated using the best available evidence whether early detection by surveillance of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) and metachronous contralateral breast cancer (MCBC) was cost-effective.MethodsAn economic model compared alternative surveillance strategies involving mammographic surveillance and/or clinical follow-up performed at differing surveillance intervals. The model structure was based upon discussions with the clinical experts involved in the study, a survey of UK breast surgeons and radiologists, and the literature. Data to populate the model came from a series of systematic reviews and an analysis of the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit Breast Cancer Registry. Results of the model were presented as incremental cost per QALYs - a measure of relative efficiency.ResultsThe surveillance strategy most likely to be cost-effective was mammographic surveillance alone provided every 12 to 24 months. This result held for women who had previously received either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy. Results were sensitive to primary tumour characteristics (size, grade, nodal involvement) used to define the likelihoods of developing an IBTR or MCBC. More intensive follow-up of women with higher likelihood of developing IBTR or MCBC may be worthwhile.ConclusionsOur conclusions remain tentative due to the paucity of the underlying evidence base but suggest surveillance is likely to improve survival, with a strategy of mammography alone every 12 to 24 months appearing cost-effective.

U2 - 10.1186/bcr2658

DO - 10.1186/bcr2658

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 5

EP - 6

JO - Breast Cancer Research

JF - Breast Cancer Research

SN - 1465-5411

IS - Suppl. 3

M1 - P5

ER -