Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening for childhood cancer survivors treated with chest radiation: A comparative modeling study.

Authors

null

Jennifer Yeh

Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Jennifer Yeh , Kathryn P. Lowry , Clyde B. Schechter , Lisa Diller , Oguzhan Alagoz , Gregory T. Armstrong , John M. Hampton , Wendy Leisenring , Qi Liu , Jeanne S. Mandelblatt , Diana L Miglioretti , Chaya S. Moskowitz , Kevin C. Oeffinger , Amy Trentham-Dietz , Natasha K. Stout

Organizations

Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Davis, CA, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, Duke University, Durham, NC, University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA

Research Funding

U.S. National Institutes of Health
Other Foundation

Background: Survivors of childhood cancer previously treated with chest radiation face elevated breast cancer risk similar to BRCA1 carriers. Children’s Oncology Group (COG) guidelines recommend annual mammography with breast MRI, yet the benefits and costs of various screening strategies are uncertain. Methods: We used two breast cancer simulation models (Model 1 and 2) from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) and data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study to reflect high breast cancer and competing mortality risks among survivors. We simulated 3 screening strategies: annual mammography with MRI starting at age 25 (COG25), annual MRI starting at 25 (MRI25), and biennial mammography starting at 50 (Mammo50). Performance of mammography+/-MRI was based on published studies in BRCA1/2 carriers who have similar cancer risk. Costs and quality of life weights were based on US averages and published studies. Results: Among a simulated cohort of 25-year-old survivors treated with chest radiation, the lifetime breast cancer mortality risk in the absence of screening was 10-11% across models. Compared to no screening, Mammo50, MRI25, and COG25 screening avert approximately 23-25%, 56-62% and 56-71% of deaths, respectively; averted deaths for COG25 compared to MRI25 were higher in Model 1 than Model 2 (9% vs. <1%). In Model 1, both MRI25 and COG25 were cost-effective; in Model 2, MRI25 was preferable (more effective, less costly than COG25). Conclusions: Compared to no screening, initiating annual screening at younger ages for at-risk survivors averts >50% of breast cancer deaths and is cost-effective. Additional data on test performance are needed to inform recommendations on screening modality.

StrategyModel 1
Model 2
False-positive tests*Incremental Costs*†QALYs gained*†ICERFalse-positive tests*Incremental Costs*†QALYs gained*†ICER
Mammo50259257
No screening01,033,840-74.40839,750-65.4
MRI2532835,629,340285.3$19,73037646,651,870175.4$37,920
COG2541888,439,630350.5$43,10048799,463,560171.6

ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($/QALY) *Per 1000 †Discounted ‡Dominated

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2019 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Discussion Session

Session Title

Health Services Research, Clinical Informatics, and Quality of Care

Track

Quality Care/Health Services Research

Sub Track

Outcomes

Citation

J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 6525)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.6525

Abstract #

6525

Poster Bd #

216

Abstract Disclosures