Search

Risk-stratified breast screening has been proposed as a strategy to overcome the limitations of age-based screening. A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which will generate the first Canadian evidence on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in the population setting to inform the implementation of risk-stratified screening. Recruited females aged 40-69 unaffected by breast cancer, with a previous mammogram, underwent multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment. The adoption of multifactorial risk assessment, the effectiveness of methods for collecting risk factor information and the costs of risk assessment were examined. Associations between participant characteristics and study sites, as well as data collection methods, were assessed using logistic regression; all p -values are two-sided. Of the 4246 participants recruited, 88.4% completed a risk assessment, with 79.8%, 15.7% and 4.4% estimated at average, higher than average and high risk, respectively. The total per-participant cost for risk assessment was CAD 315. Participants who chose to provide risk factor information on paper/telephone (27.2%) vs. online were more likely to be older ( p = 0.021), not born in Canada ( p = 0.043), visible minorities ( p = 0.01) and have a lower attained education ( p < 0.0001) and perceived fair/poor health ( p < 0.001). The 34.4% of participants requiring risk factor verification for missing/unusual values were more likely to be visible minorities ( p = 0.009) and have a lower attained education ( p ≤ 0.006). This study demonstrates the feasibility of risk assessment for risk-stratified screening at the population level. Implementation should incorporate an equity lens to ensure cancer-screening disparities are not widened.

Concurrent cohorts of 644,932 women aged 50-74 screened annually due to family history, dense breasts or biennially in the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) from 2011-2014 were linked to provincial administrative datasets to determine health system resource utilization and costs. Age-adjusted mean and median total healthcare costs (2018 CAD) and incremental cost differences were calculated by screening outcome and compared by recommendation using regression models. Healthcare costs were compared overall and 1 year after a false positive (n = 46,081) screening mammogram and 2 years after a breast cancer diagnosis (n = 6011). Mean overall healthcare costs by age were highest for those 60-74, particularly with annual screening for family/personal history (CAD 5425; 95% CI: 5308 to 5557) compared to biennial. Although the mean incremental cost difference was higher (23.4%) by CAD 10,235 (95% CI: 6141 to 14,329) per breast cancer for women screened annually for density ≥ 75% compared to biennially, the cost difference was 12.0% lower (-CAD 461; 95% CI: -777 to -114) per false positive result. In contrast, for women screened annually for family/personal history, the mean cost difference per false positive was 19.7% higher than for biennially (CAD 758; 95% CI: 404 to 1118); however, the cost difference per breast cancer was only slightly higher (2.5%) by CAD 1093 (95% CI: -1337 to CAD 3760). Understanding that associated costs of annual compared to biennial screening may balance out by age and outcome can assist decision-making regarding the use of limited healthcare resources.