Search

Importance: Information on long-term benefits and harms of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with or without supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is needed for clinical and policy discussions, particularly for patients with dense breasts., Objective: To project long-term population-based outcomes for breast cancer mammography screening strategies (DBT or digital mammography) with or without supplemental MRI by breast density., Design, Setting, and Participants: Collaborative modeling using 3 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer simulation models informed by US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data. Simulated women born in 1980 with average breast cancer risk were included. Modeling analyses were conducted from January 2020 to December 2023., Intervention: Annual or biennial mammography screening with or without supplemental MRI by breast density starting at ages 40, 45, or 50 years through age 74 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime breast cancer deaths averted, false-positive recall and false-positive biopsy recommendations per 1000 simulated women followed-up from age 40 years to death summarized as means and ranges across models., Results: Biennial DBT screening for all simulated women started at age 50 vs 40 years averted 7.4 vs 8.5 breast cancer deaths, respectively, and led to 884 vs 1392 false-positive recalls and 151 vs 221 false-positive biopsy recommendations, respectively. Biennial digital mammography had similar deaths averted and slightly more false-positive test results than DBT screening. Adding MRI for women with extremely dense breasts to biennial DBT screening for women aged 50 to 74 years increased deaths averted (7.6 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (919 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (180 vs 151). Extending supplemental MRI to women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts further increased deaths averted (8.0 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (1088 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (343 vs 151). The same strategy for women aged 40 to 74 years averted 9.5 deaths but led to 1850 false-positive recalls and 628 false-positive biopsy recommendations. Annual screening modestly increased estimated deaths averted but markedly increased estimated false-positive results., Conclusions and Relevance: In this model-based comparative effectiveness analysis, supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts added to DBT screening led to greater benefits and increased harms. The balance of this trade-off for supplemental MRI use was more favorable when MRI was targeted to women with extremely dense breasts who comprise approximately 10% of the population.

Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known., Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies., Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses., Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment., Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women., Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women., Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

Objectives: To define the optimal and cost-effective breast cancer screening strategy for Georgia., Methods: We used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Breast (MISCAN-Breast) model that has been adapted to the Georgian situation to evaluate 736 mammography screening strategies varied by interval (biennial and triennial), starting ages (40-60 years), stopping ages (64-84 years), and screening modality (with and without clinical breast examination [CBE]). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional cost (healthcare perspective) compared with no screening per 1000 women were calculated with 3% discount. Major uncertainties (eg, costs) are addressed as sensitivity analyses., Results: Strategies using a combination of mammography and CBE yielded in substantially higher costs with minimal differences in outcomes compared with mammography-only strategies. The current screening strategy, biennial mammography screening from the age of 40 until 70 years with CBE, is close to the frontier line but requires high additional cost given the QALY gains (€16 218/QALY), well above the willingness-to-pay threshold of €12 720. The optimal strategy in Georgia would be triennial mammography-only screening from age 45 to 66 years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12 507., Conclusions: Biennial screening strategies are resource-intensive strategies and may not be feasible for Georgia. By switching to triennial mammography-only strategy from the age of 45 until 66 years, it is possible to offer screening to more eligible women while still gaining substantial screening benefits. This is to address capacity issues which is a common barrier for many Eastern European countries., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Links to the individual disclosure forms provided by the authors are available here., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Organized breast cancer screening may not achieve its full potential due to organizational and cultural barriers. In Italy, two identified barriers were low attendance in Southern Italy and, in Italy as a whole, underscreening and overscreening in parts of the eligible population. The objective of this study was to identify potential changes to overcome these barriers and to quantify their costs and effects., Methods: To assess the impact of potential measures to improve breast cancer screening in Italy, we performed an evaluation of costs and effects for increasing adherence for Southern Italy and harmonizing screening intervals (biennial screening) for the whole of Italy, using an online tool (EU-TOPIA evaluation tool) based on the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model., Results: Increasing adherence in Southern Italy through investing in mobile screening units has an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio of €9531 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Harmonizing the screening interval by investing in measures to reduce opportunistic screening and simultaneously investing in mobile screening units to reduce underscreening is predicted to gain 1% fewer life-years, while saving 19% of total screening costs compared to the current situation., Conclusions: Increasing adherence in Southern Italy and harmonizing the screening interval could result in substantial improvements at acceptable costs, or in the same benefits at lower costs. This example illustrates a systematic approach that can be easily applied to other European countries, as the online tools can be used by stakeholders to quantify effects and costs of a broad range of specific barriers, and ways to overcome them.

Women tend to make a decision about participation in breast cancer screening and adhere to this for future invitations. Therefore, our study aimed to provide high-quality information on cumulative risks of false-positive (FP) recall and screen-detected breast cancer over multiple screening examinations. Individual Dutch screening registry data (2005-2018) were gathered on subsequent screening examinations of 92 902 women age 49 to 51 years in 2005. Survival analyses were used to calculate cumulative risks of a FP and a true-positive (TP) result after seven examinations. Data from 66 472 women age 58 to 59 years were used to extrapolate to 11 examinations. Participation, detection and additional FP rates were calculated for women who previously received FP results compared to women with true negative (TN) results. After 7 examinations, the cumulative risk of a TP result was 3.7% and the cumulative risk of a FP result was 9.1%. After 11 examinations, this increased to 7.1% and 13.5%, respectively. Following a FP result, participation was lower (71%-81%) than following a TN result (>90%). In women with a FP result, more TP results (factor 1.59 [95% CI: 1.44-1.72]), more interval cancers (factor 1.66 [95% CI: 1.41-1.91]) and more FP results (factor 1.96 [95% CI: 1.87-2.05]) were found than in women with TN results. In conclusion, due to a low recall rate in the Netherlands, the cumulative risk of a FP recall is relatively low, while the cumulative risk of a TP result is comparable. Breast cancer diagnoses and FP results were more common in women with FP results than in women with TN results, while participation was lower., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Many European countries offer organised population-based breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes. Around age 55 and 60, Dutch women are invited to all three screening programmes. We examined the extent to which participation concurs and identified factors influencing concurrent participation., Materials and Methods: Individual level data from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening invitations between 2017 and 2019 were extracted from the Dutch screening registry. The percentages of women participating in all three, two, one, or none of the programmes around age 55 and 60, and before subsequent round invitation were determined. Multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to estimate whether population density, socio-economic status (SES) per postal code area, and time between the three invitations (<3, 3-6, >6 months) were associated with concurrent participation., Results: Data from 332,484 women were analysed. At age 55, 53.7% participated in all three programmes, 22.1% in two, 11.7% in one, and 12.6% did not participate at all. At age 60, a similar participation pattern was observed. Women living in areas with higher population density were less likely (odds ratios 0.75-0.94) and women in higher SES groups were more likely (odds ratios 1.12-1.60) to participate in more screening programmes, although this positive association was smaller for the highest SES group. No substantial association was found between concurrent participation and timing of invitations., Conclusions: More than half of Dutch women participated in all three screening programmes and around 12% did not participate in any. Concurrent participation was lower in cities and lower SES groups., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer screening policies have been designed decades ago, but current screening strategies may not be optimal anymore. Next to that, screening capacity issues may restrict feasibility. This cost-effectiveness study evaluates an extensive set of breast cancer screening strategies in the Netherlands. Using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Breast (MISCAN-Breast) model, the cost-effectiveness of 920 breast cancer screening strategies with varying starting ages (40-60), stopping ages (64-84) and intervals (1-4 years) were simulated. The number of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and additional net costs (in €) per 1000 women were predicted (3.5% discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare screening scenarios. Sensitivity analyses were performed using different assumptions. In total, 26 strategies covering all four intervals were on the efficiency frontier. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000/QALY gained, the biennial 40 to 76 screening strategy was optimal. However, this strategy resulted in more overdiagnoses and false positives, and required a high screening capacity. The current strategy in the Netherlands, biennial 50 to 74 years, was dominated. Triennial screening in the age range 44 to 71 (ICER 9364) or 44 to 74 (ICER 11144) resulted in slightly more QALYs gained and lower costs than the current Dutch strategy. Furthermore, these strategies were estimated to require a lower screening capacity. Findings were robust when varying attendance and effectiveness of treatment. In conclusion, switching from biennial to triennial screening while simultaneously lowering the starting age to 44 can increase benefits at lower costs and with a minor increase in harms compared to the current strategy., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Importance: Screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. However, there are few data to guide screening regimens for these women., Objective: To estimate the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening strategies using mammography and MRI at various start ages for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative modeling analysis used 2 established breast cancer microsimulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate different screening strategies. Age-specific breast cancer risks were estimated using aggregated data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium for 32 247 cases and 32 544 controls in 12 population-based studies. Data on screening performance for mammography and MRI were estimated from published literature. The models simulated US women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants born in 1985., Interventions: Screening strategies with combinations of annual mammography alone and with MRI starting at age 25, 30, 35, or 40 years until age 74 years., Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime breast cancer mortality reduction, life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted, total screening examinations, false-positive screenings, and benign biopsies per 1000 women screened. Results are reported as model mean values and ranges., Results: The mean model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk was 20.9% (18.1%-23.7%) for women with ATM pathogenic variants, 27.6% (23.4%-31.7%) for women with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, and 39.5% (35.6%-43.3%) for women with PALB2 pathogenic variants. Across pathogenic variants, annual mammography alone from 40 to 74 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 36.4% (34.6%-38.2%) to 38.5% (37.8%-39.2%) compared with no screening. Screening with annual MRI starting at 35 years followed by annual mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 54.4% (54.2%-54.7%) to 57.6% (57.2%-58.0%), with 4661 (4635-4688) to 5001 (4979-5023) false-positive screenings and 1280 (1272-1287) to 1368 (1362-1374) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Annual MRI starting at 30 years followed by mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce mortality by 55.4% (55.3%-55.4%) to 59.5% (58.5%-60.4%), with 5075 (5057-5093) to 5415 (5393-5437) false-positive screenings and 1439 (1429-1449) to 1528 (1517-1538) benign biopsies per 1000 women. When starting MRI at 30 years, initiating annual mammography starting at 30 vs 40 years did not meaningfully reduce mean mortality rates (0.1% [0.1%-0.2%] to 0.3% [0.2%-0.3%]) but was estimated to add 649 (602-695) to 650 (603-696) false-positive screenings and 58 (41-76) to 59 (41-76) benign biopsies per 1000 women., Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis suggests that annual MRI screening starting at 30 to 35 years followed by annual MRI and mammography at 40 years may reduce breast cancer mortality by more than 50% for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. In the setting of MRI screening, mammography prior to 40 years may offer little additional benefit.

Background: Extremely dense breast tissue is associated with increased breast cancer risk and limited sensitivity of mammography. The DENSE trial showed that additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening in women with extremely dense breasts resulted in a substantial reduction in interval cancers. The cost-effectiveness of MRI screening for these women is unknown., Methods: We used the MISCAN-breast microsimulation model to simulate several screening protocols containing mammography and/or MRI to estimate long-term effects and costs. The model was calibrated using results of the DENSE trial and adjusted to incorporate decreases in breast density with increasing age. Screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women ages 50-75 years. Outcomes were numbers of breast cancers, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), breast cancer deaths, and overdiagnosis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated (3% discounting), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000., Results: Calibration resulted in a conservative fit of the model regarding MRI detection. Both strategies of the DENSE trial were dominated (biennial mammography; biennial mammography plus MRI). MRI alone every 4 years was cost-effective with €15 620 per QALY. Screening every 3 years with MRI alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €37 181 per QALY. All strategies with mammography and/or a 2-year interval were dominated because other strategies resulted in more additional QALYs per additional euro. Alternating mammography and MRI every 2 years was close to the efficiency frontier., Conclusions: MRI screening is cost-effective for women with extremely dense breasts, when applied at a 4-year interval. For a willingness to pay more than €22 000 per QALY gained, MRI at a 3-year interval is cost-effective as well., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: A paucity of research addresses breast cancer screening strategies for women at lower-than-average breast cancer risk. The aim of this study was to examine screening harms and benefits among women aged 50-74 years at lower-than-average breast cancer risk by breast density., Methods: Three well-established, validated Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network models were used to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of different screening scenarios, varying by screening interval (biennial, triennial). Breast cancer deaths averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained, false-positives, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis were assessed by relative risk (RR) level (0.6, 0.7, 0.85, 1 [average risk]) and breast density category, for US women born in 1970., Results: Screening benefits decreased proportionally with decreasing risk and with lower breast density. False-positives, unnecessary biopsies, and the percentage overdiagnosis also varied substantially by breast density category; false-positives and unnecessary biopsies were highest in the heterogeneously dense category. For women with fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density and a relative risk of no more than 0.85, the additional deaths averted and life-years gained were small with biennial vs triennial screening. For these groups, undergoing 4 additional screens (screening biennially [13 screens] vs triennially [9 screens]) averted no more than 1 additional breast cancer death and gained no more than 16 life-years and no more than 10 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 women but resulted in up to 232 more false-positives per 1000 women., Conclusion: Triennial screening from age 50 to 74 years may be a reasonable screening strategy for women with lower-than-average breast cancer risk and fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.)

Background In the first (prevalent) supplemental MRI screening round of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, a considerable number of breast cancers were found at the cost of an increased false-positive rate (FPR). In incident screening rounds, a lower cancer detection rate (CDR) is expected due to a smaller pool of prevalent cancers, and a reduced FPR, due to the availability of prior MRI examinations. Purpose To investigate screening performance indicators of the second round (incidence round) of the DENSE trial. Materials and Methods The DENSE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01315015) is embedded within the Dutch population-based biennial mammography screening program for women aged 50-75 years. MRI examinations were performed between December 2011 and January 2016. Women were eligible for the second round when they again had a negative screening mammogram 2 years after their first MRI. The recall rate, biopsy rate, CDR, FPR, positive predictive values, and distributions of tumor characteristics were calculated and compared with results of the first round using 95% CIs and χ 2 tests. Results A total of 3436 women (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 48-64 years) underwent a second MRI screening. The CDR was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 3.8, 9.0) compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 13.3, 20.5) in the first round. The FPR was 26.3 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 21.5, 32.3) in the second round versus 79.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 72.4, 87.9) in the first round. The positive predictive value for recall was 18% (20 of 110 participants recalled; 95% CI: 12.1, 26.4), and the positive predictive value for biopsy was 24% (20 of 84 participants who underwent biopsy; 95% CI: 16.0, 33.9), both comparable to that of the first round. All tumors in the second round were stage 0-I and node negative. Conclusion The incremental cancer detection rate in the second round was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations-compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations in the first round. This was accompanied by a strong reduction in the number of false-positive results. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Background: We assessed the clinical utility of a first-degree breast cancer family history and polygenic risk score (PRS) to inform screening decisions among women aged 30-50 years., Methods: Two established breast cancer models evaluated digital mammography screening strategies in the 1985 US birth cohort by risk groups defined by family history and PRS based on 313 single nucleotide polymorphisms. Strategies varied in initiation age (30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 years) and interval (annual, hybrid, biennial, triennial). The benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, life-years gained) and harms (false-positive mammograms, overdiagnoses) were compared with those seen with 3 established screening guidelines., Results: Women with a breast cancer family history who initiated biennial screening at age 40 years (vs 50 years) had a 36% (model range = 29%-40%) increase in life-years gained and 20% (model range = 16%-24%) more breast cancer deaths averted, but 21% (model range = 17%-23%) more overdiagnoses and 63% (model range = 62%-64%) more false positives. Screening tailored to PRS vs biennial screening from 50 to 74 years had smaller positive effects on life-years gained (20%) and breast cancer deaths averted (11%) but also smaller increases in overdiagnoses (10%) and false positives (26%). Combined use of family history and PRS vs biennial screening from 50 to 74 years had the greatest increase in life-years gained (29%) and breast cancer deaths averted (18%)., Conclusions: Our results suggest that breast cancer family history and PRS could guide screening decisions before age 50 years among women at increased risk for breast cancer but expected increases in overdiagnoses and false positives should be expected., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objectives: To quantify the impact of mammography-based screening on the quality of life, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained can be used. We aimed to assess whether the use of DALYs averted or QALYs gained will lead to different cost-effective screening strategies., Methods: Using the microsimulation model MISCAN, we simulated different breast cancer screening strategies varying in starting age (starting at 45, 47, and 50 years), stopping age (stopping at 69, 72, and 74 years), and frequency (annual [A], biennial [B], combination of both [A + B], and triennial [T]). In total, we defined 24 different breast cancer screening strategies, including no screening as a reference strategy. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and compared which strategies were on the efficiency frontiers for DALYs and QALYs., Results: Breast cancer screening averted between 46.00 and 105.58 DALYs and gained between 28.69 and 64.50 QALYs per 1000 women. For DALYs there were 5 strategies on the efficiency frontier (T50-69, T50-74, T45-74, B45-74, and A45-74). The same strategies plus one (B45-72) were on the efficiency frontier for QALYs., Conclusions: Using DALYs averted instead of QALYs gained to assess the effects on quality of life from breast cancer screening in the Dutch population yields differences in ICERs, but almost the same strategies were on the efficiency frontiers. Whether the choice in outcome measure leads to a difference in optimal policy depends on the cost-effectiveness threshold., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Currently, all European countries offer some form of breast cancer screening. Nevertheless, disparities exist in the status of implementation, attendance and the extent of opportunistic screening. As a result, breast cancer screening has not yet reached its full potential. We examined how many breast cancer deaths could be prevented if all European countries would biennially screen all women aged 50 to 69 for breast cancer. We calculated the number of breast cancer deaths already prevented due to screening as well as the number of breast cancer deaths which could be additionally prevented if the total examination coverage (organised plus opportunistic) would reach 100%. The calculations are based on total examination coverage in women aged 50 to 69, the annual number of breast cancer deaths for women aged 50 to 74 and the maximal possible mortality reduction from breast cancer, assuming similar effectiveness of organised and opportunistic screening. The total examination coverage ranged from 49% (East), 62% (West), 64% (North) to 69% (South). Yearly 21 680 breast cancer deaths have already been prevented due to mammography screening. If all countries would reach 100% examination coverage, 12 434 additional breast cancer deaths could be prevented annually, with the biggest potential in Eastern Europe. With maximum coverage, 23% of their breast cancer deaths could be additionally prevented, while in Western Europe it could be 21%, in Southern Europe 15% and in Northern Europe 9%. Our study illustrates that by further optimising screening coverage, the number of breast cancer deaths in Europe can be lowered substantially., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Union for International Cancer Control.)

In mammography screening programmes, women are screened according to a one-size-fits-all principle. Tailored screening, based on risk levels, may lead to a better balance of benefits and harms. With microsimulation modelling, we determined optimal mammography screening strategies for women at lower (relative risk [RR] 0.75) and higher (RR 1.8) than average risk of breast cancer, eligible for screening, using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of current uniform screening in the Netherlands (biennial [B] 50-74) as a threshold ICER. Strategies varied by interval (annual [A], biennial, triennial [T]) and age range. The number of life-years gained (LYG), breast cancer deaths averted, overdiagnosed cases, false-positive mammograms, ICERs and harm-benefit ratios were calculated. Optimal risk-based screening scenarios, below the threshold ICER of €8883/LYG, were T50-71 (€7840/LYG) for low-risk and B40-74 (€6062/LYG) for high-risk women. T50-71 screening in low-risk women resulted in a 33% reduction in false-positive findings, a similar reduction in costs and improved harm-benefit ratios compared to the current screening schedule. B40-74 in high-risk women led to an increase in screening benefit, compared to current B50-74 screening, but a relatively higher increase in false-positive findings. In conclusion, optimal screening consisted of a longer interval and lower stopping age than current uniform screening for low-risk women, and a lower starting age for high-risk women. Extending the interval for women at lower risk from biennial to triennial screening reduced harms and costs while maintaining most of the screening benefit., (© 2020 UICC.)

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising screening test, but its outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain.PurposeTo determine if biennial DBT is cost-effective in a screening setting, when compared with digital mammography (DM) in the Netherlands, and to quantify the uncertainty.Materials and MethodsIn this study, performed from March 2018 to February 2019, the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis model was used to conduct a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), consisting of 10 000 model runs with 1 000 000 women simulated per run. The Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis package and the Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information tool were used to process PSA outcomes. Two simulated cohorts born in 1970 were invited to undergo biennial screening between ages 50 and 74 years-one cohort was assigned to DM screening, and one was assigned to DBT screening. DM input parameters were based on data from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. DBT parameters were based on literature and expert opinion. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €20 000 ($22 000) and €35 000 ($38 500) per life-year gained (LYG) were considered. Effects and costs were discounted at 3.5% per year.ResultsDBT resulted in a gain of 13 additional life-years per 1000 women invited to screening (7% increase, 13 of 193), followed over lifetime, compared with DM and led to 2% (four of 159) fewer false-positive results. DBT screening led to incremental discounted lifetime effects of 5.09 LYGs (95% confidence interval: -0.80, 9.70) and an increase in lifetime costs of €137 555 ($151 311) per 1000 women (95% confidence interval: €31 093 [$34 202], €263 537 [$289 891]) compared with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €27 023 ($29 725) per LYG. The probability of DBT being more cost-effective was 0.36 at €20 000 and 0.66 at €35 000 per LYG.ConclusionSwitching from digital mammography to biennial digital breast tomosynthesis is not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per life-year gained, but digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher probability of being more cost-effective than digital mammography at a threshold of €35 000 per life-year gained.© RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue.

Importance: For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce., Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied., Interventions: Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied., Results: This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.

Background: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased substantially since the introduction of mammography screening. Nevertheless, little is known about the natural history of preclinical DCIS in the absence of biopsy or complete excision., Methods: Two well-established population models evaluated six possible DCIS natural history submodels. The submodels assumed 30%, 50%, or 80% of breast lesions progress from undetectable DCIS to preclinical screen-detectable DCIS; each model additionally allowed or prohibited DCIS regression. Preclinical screen-detectable DCIS could also progress to clinical DCIS or invasive breast cancer (IBC). Applying US population screening dissemination patterns, the models projected age-specific DCIS and IBC incidence that were compared to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Models estimated mean sojourn time (MST) in the preclinical screen-detectable DCIS state, overdiagnosis, and the risk of progression from preclinical screen-detectable DCIS., Results: Without biopsy and surgical excision, the majority of DCIS (64-100%) in the preclinical screen-detectable state progressed to IBC in submodels assuming no DCIS regression (36-100% in submodels allowing for DCIS regression). DCIS overdiagnosis differed substantially between models and submodels, 3.1-65.8%. IBC overdiagnosis ranged 1.3-2.4%. Submodels assuming DCIS regression resulted in a higher DCIS overdiagnosis than submodels without DCIS regression. MST for progressive DCIS varied between 0.2 and 2.5 years., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the majority of screen-detectable but unbiopsied preclinical DCIS lesions progress to IBC and that the MST is relatively short. Nevertheless, due to the heterogeneity of DCIS, more research is needed to understand the progression of DCIS by grades and molecular subtypes.

There is uncertainty about the magnitude of the effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality. The relevance and validity of evidence from dated randomized controlled trials has been questioned, whereas observational studies often lack a valid comparison group. There is no estimate of the effect of one screening invitation only. We exploited the geographic rollout of the Dutch screening mammography program across municipalities to estimate the effects of one additional biennial screening invitation on breast cancer and all-cause mortality. Population administrative data provided vital status and cause of death of a cohort of women aged 49-63 in 1995 over 17 years. Linear probability models were used to estimate the mortality effects. We estimated 154 fewer breast cancer deaths (95% confidence interval: 40-267; p = 0.01) over 17 years in a population of 100,000 women aged 49-63 who received one additional biennial screening invitation, which corresponds to an 9.6% risk reduction for a woman of age 56. The estimated effect on all-cause mortality was negative but not close to statistical significance. Our study shows that one single invitation for breast cancer screening is effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, which is important for health policy. The effect is smaller than previous estimates of the effect of invitation for multiple screens, which further emphasizes the importance of achieving regular participation., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of organised mammography screening on breast cancer mortality across European regions. Therefore, a systematic review was performed including different types of studies from all European regions and stringently used clearly defined quality appraisal to summarise the best evidence., Methods: Six databases were searched including Embase, Medline and Web of Science from inception to March 2018. To identify all eligible studies which assessed the effect of organised screening on breast cancer mortality, two reviewers independently applied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Original studies in English with a minimum follow-up of five years that were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies were included. The Cochrane risk of bias instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk of bias., Results: Of the 5015 references initially retrieved, 60 were included in the final analysis. Those comprised 36 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies and 7 RCTs. None were from Eastern Europe. The quality of the included studies varied: Nineteen of these studies were of very good or good quality. Of those, the reduction in breast cancer mortality in attenders versus non-attenders ranged between 33% and 43% (Northern Europe), 43%-45% (Southern Europe) and 12%-58% (Western Europe). The estimates ranged between 4% and 31% in invited versus non-invited., Conclusion: This systematic review provides evidence that organised screening reduces breast cancer mortality in all European regions where screening was implemented and monitored, while quantification is still lacking for Eastern Europe. The wide range of estimates indicates large differences in the evaluation designs between studies, rather than in the effectiveness of screening., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Extremely dense breast tissue is a risk factor for breast cancer and limits the detection of cancer with mammography. Data are needed on the use of supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve early detection and reduce interval breast cancers in such patients., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the Netherlands, we assigned 40,373 women between the ages of 50 and 75 years with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on screening mammography to a group that was invited to undergo supplemental MRI or to a group that received mammography screening only. The groups were assigned in a 1:4 ratio, with 8061 in the MRI-invitation group and 32,312 in the mammography-only group. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the incidence of interval cancers during a 2-year screening period., Results: The interval-cancer rate was 2.5 per 1000 screenings in the MRI-invitation group and 5.0 per 1000 screenings in the mammography-only group, for a difference of 2.5 per 1000 screenings (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 3.7; P<0.001). Of the women who were invited to undergo MRI, 59% accepted the invitation. Of the 20 interval cancers that were diagnosed in the MRI-invitation group, 4 were diagnosed in the women who actually underwent MRI (0.8 per 1000 screenings) and 16 in those who did not accept the invitation (4.9 per 1000 screenings). The MRI cancer-detection rate among the women who actually underwent MRI screening was 16.5 per 1000 screenings (95% CI, 13.3 to 20.5). The positive predictive value was 17.4% (95% CI, 14.2 to 21.2) for recall for additional testing and 26.3% (95% CI, 21.7 to 31.6) for biopsy. The false positive rate was 79.8 per 1000 screenings. Among the women who underwent MRI, 0.1% had either an adverse event or a serious adverse event during or immediately after the screening., Conclusions: The use of supplemental MRI screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on mammography resulted in the diagnosis of significantly fewer interval cancers than mammography alone during a 2-year screening period. (Funded by the University Medical Center Utrecht and others; DENSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01315015.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Women with Down syndrome have a lower breast cancer risk and significantly lower life expectancies than women without Down syndrome. Therefore, it is not clear whether mammography screening strategies used for women without Down syndrome would benefit women with Down syndrome in the same way., Objective: To determine the benefits and harms of various mammography screening strategies for women with Down syndrome using collaborative simulation modeling., Design: Two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) simulation models estimated the benefits and harms of various screening strategies for women with Down syndrome over a lifetime horizon., Participants: We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US women with Down syndrome who were born in 1970., Interventions: Annual, biennial, triennial, and one-time digital mammography screenings during the ages 40-74., Main Measures: The models estimated numbers of mammograms, false-positives, benign biopsies, breast cancer deaths prevented, and life-years gained per 1000 screened women when compared with no screening., Key Results: In average-risk women 50-74, biennial screening incurred 122 mammograms, 10 false-positive mammograms, and 1.4 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening. In women with Down syndrome, the same screening strategy incurred 2752 mammograms, 242 false-positive mammograms, and 34 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening. The harm/benefit ratio varied for other screening strategies, and was most favorable for one-time screening at age 50, which incurred 1629 mammograms, 144 false-positive mammograms, and 20 benign biopsies per one life-year gained compared with no screening., Conclusions: The harm/benefit ratios for various mammography screening strategies in women with Down syndrome are not as favorable as those for average-risk women. The benefit of screening mammography for women with Down syndrome is less pronounced due to lower breast cancer risk and shorter life expectancy.

Background: All-cause mortality has been suggested as an end-point in cancer screening trials in order to avoid biases in attributing the cause of death. The aim of this study was to investigate which sample size and follow-up is needed to find a significant reduction in all-cause mortality., Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify previous studies that modeled the effect of screening on all-cause mortality. Microsimulation modeling was used to simulate breast cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer screening trials. Model outputs were: cancer-specific deaths, all-cause deaths, and life-years gained per year of follow-up., Results: There were large differences between the evaluated cancers. For lung cancer, when 40 000 high-risk people are randomized to each arm, a significant reduction in all-cause mortality could be expected between 11 and 13 years of follow-up. For breast cancer, a significant reduction could be found between 16 and 26 years of follow-up for a sample size of over 300 000 women in each arm. For colorectal cancer, 600 000 persons in each arm were required to be followed for 15-20 years. Our systematic literature review identified seven papers, which showed highly similar results to our estimates., Conclusion: Cancer screening trials are able to demonstrate a significant reduction in all-cause mortality due to screening, but require very large sample sizes. Depending on the cancer, 40 000-600 000 participants per arm are needed to demonstrate a significant reduction. The reduction in all-cause mortality can only be detected between specific years of follow-up, more limited than the timeframe to detect a reduction in cancer-specific mortality., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk., Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30-55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5-14] vs 17 mm [13-22]; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group)., Interpretation: MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density., Funding: Dutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to identify barriers to effective breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programmes throughout the whole of the European region using the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST). The study was part of the scope of the EU-TOPIA (TOwards imProved screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer In All of Europe) project and respondents were European screening organisers, researchers and policymakers taking part in a workshop for the project in Budapest in September 2017. 67 respondents from 31 countries responded to the online survey. The study found that there are many barriers to effective screening throughout the system from identification of the eligible population to ensuring appropriate follow-up and treatment for the three cancers. The most common barriers were opportunistic screening, sub-optimal participation, limited capacity (including trained human resource), inadequate and/or disjointed information technology systems and complex administration procedures. Many of the barriers were reported consistently across different countries. This study identified the barriers that, in general, require further investment of resources., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The benefits of population-based screening for breast cancer are now accepted although, in practice, programmes often fail to achieve their full potential. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model that situates screening programmes within the broader health system to understand the factors that influence their outcomes. We view the overall screening system as having multiple sub-systems to identify the population at risk, generate knowledge of effectiveness, maximise uptake, operate the programme, and optimise follow-up and assurance of subsequent treatment. Based on this model we have developed the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST) for analysing government-led, population-based screening programmes from a health systems perspective. Conceived as a self-assessment tool, we piloted the tool with key informants in six European countries (Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and Slovenia) to identify barriers to the optimal operation of population-based breast cancer screening programmes. The pilot provided valuable feedback on the barriers affecting breast cancer screening programmes and stimulated a greater recognition among those operating them of the need to take a health systems perspective. In addition, the pilot led to further development of the tool and provided a foundation for further research into how to overcome the identified barriers., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be a precursor to invasive breast cancer. Since the advent of screening mammography in the 1980's, the incidence of DCIS has increased dramatically. The value of screen detection and treatment of DCIS, however, is a matter of controversy, as it is unclear the extent to which detection and treatment of DCIS prevents invasive disease and reduces breast cancer mortality. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of existing Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modelling Network (CISNET) modeling approaches for the natural history of DCIS, and to compare these to other modeling approaches reported in the literature., Design: Five of the 6 CISNET models currently include DCIS. Most models assume that some, but not all, lesions progress to invasive cancer. The natural history of DCIS cannot be directly observed and the CISNET models differ in their assumptions and in the data sources used to estimate the DCIS model parameters., Results: These model differences translate into variation in outcomes, such as the amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, with estimates ranging from 34% to 72% for biennial screening from ages 50 to 74 y. The other models described in the literature also report a large range in outcomes, with progression rates varying from 20% to 91%., Limitations: DCIS grade was not yet included in the CISNET models., Conclusion: In the future, DCIS data by grade from active surveillance trials, the development of predictive markers of progression probability, and evidence from other screening modalities, such as tomosynthesis, may be used to inform and improve the models' representation of DCIS, and might lead to convergence of the model estimates. Until then, the CISNET model results consistently show a considerable amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, supporting the safety and value of observational trials for low-risk DCIS.

The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Working Group is a consortium of National Cancer Institute-sponsored investigators who use statistical and simulation modeling to evaluate the impact of cancer control interventions on long-term population-level breast cancer outcomes such as incidence and mortality and to determine the impact of different breast cancer control strategies. The CISNET breast cancer models have been continuously funded since 2000. The models have gone through several updates since their inception to reflect advances in the understanding of the molecular basis of breast cancer, changes in the prevalence of common risk factors, and improvements in therapy and early detection technology. This article provides an overview and history of the CISNET breast cancer models, provides an overview of the major changes in the model inputs over time, and presents examples for how CISNET breast cancer models have been used for policy evaluation.

Background: The UK Age trial compared annual mammography screening of women ages 40 to 49 years with no screening and found a statistically significant breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up but not at the 17-year follow-up. The objective of this study was to compare the observed Age trial results with the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer model predicted results., Methods: Five established CISNET breast cancer models used data on population demographics, screening attendance, and mammography performance from the Age trial together with extant natural history parameters to project breast cancer incidence and mortality in the control and intervention arm of the trial., Results: The models closely reproduced the effect of annual screening from ages 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence. Restricted to breast cancer deaths originating from cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase, the models estimated an average 15% (range across models, 13% to 17%) breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up compared with 25% (95% CI, 3% to 42%) observed in the trial. At the 17-year follow-up, the models predicted 13% (range, 10% to 17%) reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with the non-significant 12% (95% CI, -4% to 26%) in the trial., Conclusions: The models underestimated the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality at the 10-year follow-up. Overall, the models captured the observed long-term effect of screening from age 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence and mortality in the UK Age trial, suggesting that the model structures, input parameters, and assumptions about breast cancer natural history are reasonable for estimating the impact of screening on mortality in this age group.

The MISCAN-Fadia microsimulation model uses continuous tumor growth to simulate the natural history of breast cancer and has been used extensively to estimate the impact of screening and adjuvant treatment on breast cancer incidence and mortality trends. The model simulates individual life histories from birth to death, with and without breast cancer, in the presence and in the absence of screening and treatment. Life histories are simulated according to discrete events such as birth, tumor inception, the tumor's clinical diagnosis diameter in the absence of screening, and death from breast cancer or death from other causes. MISCAN-Fadia consists of 4 main components: demography, natural history of breast cancer, screening, and treatment. Screening impact on the natural history of breast cancer is assessed by simulating continuous tumor growth and the "fatal diameter" concept. This concept implies that tumors diagnosed at a size that is between the screen detection threshold and the fatal diameter are cured, while tumors diagnosed at a diameter larger than the fatal tumor diameter metastasize and lead to breast cancer death. MISCAN-Fadia has been extended by including a different natural history for molecular subtypes based on a tumor's estrogen receptor (ER) status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. In addition, personalized screening strategies that target women based on their risk such as breast density have been incorporated into the model. This personalized approach to screening will continue to develop in light of potential polygenic risk stratification possibilities and new screening modalities.

Background: Collaborative modeling has been used to estimate the impact of potential cancer screening strategies worldwide. A necessary step in the interpretation of collaborative cancer screening model results is to understand how model structure and model assumptions influence cancer incidence and mortality predictions. In this study, we examined the relative contributions of the pre-clinical duration of breast cancer, the sensitivity of screening, and the improvement in prognosis associated with treatment of screen-detected cases to the breast cancer incidence and mortality predictions of 5 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models., Methods: To tease out the impact of model structure and assumptions on model predictions, the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction (MCLIR) method compares changes in the number of breast cancers diagnosed due to clinical symptoms and cancer mortality between 4 simplified scenarios: 1) no-screening; 2) one-time perfect screening exam, which detects all existing cancers and perfect treatment (i.e., cure) of all screen-detected cancers; 3) one-time digital mammogram and perfect treatment of all screen-detected cancers; and 4) one-time digital mammogram and current guideline-concordant treatment of all screen-detected cancers., Results: The 5 models predicted a large range in maximum clinical incidence (19% to 71%) and in breast cancer mortality reduction (33% to 67%) from a one-time perfect screening test and perfect treatment. In this perfect scenario, the models with assumptions of tumor inception before it is first detectable by mammography predicted substantially higher incidence and mortality reductions than models with assumptions of tumor onset at the start of a cancer's screen-detectable phase. The range across models in breast cancer clinical incidence (11% to 24%) and mortality reduction (8% to 18%) from a one-time digital mammogram at age 62 y with observed sensitivity and current guideline-concordant treatment was considerably smaller than achievable under perfect conditions., Conclusions: The timing of tumor inception and its effect on the length of the pre-clinical phase of breast cancer had a substantial impact on the grouping of models based on their predictions for clinical incidence and breast cancer mortality reduction. This key finding about the timing of tumor inception will be included in future CISNET breast analyses to enhance model transparency. The MCLIR approach should aid in the interpretation of variations in model results and could be adopted in other disease screening settings to enhance model transparency.

Background: Between 2003 and 2010 digital mammography (DM) gradually replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (BCSP). Previous studies showed increases in detection rate (DR) after the transition to DM. However, national interval cancer rates (ICR) have not yet been reported., Methods: We assessed programme sensitivity and specificity during the transition period to DM, analysing nationwide data on screen-detected and interval cancers. Data of 7.3 million screens in women aged 49-74, between 2004 and 2011, were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to obtain data on interval cancers. Age-adjusted DRs, ICRs and recall rates (RR) per 1000 screens and programme sensitivity and specificity were calculated by year, age and screening modality., Results: 41,662 screen-detected and 16,160 interval cancers were analysed. The DR significantly increased from 5.13 (95% confidence interval (CI):5.00-5.30) in 2004 to 6.34 (95% CI:6.15-6.47) in 2011, for both in situ (2004:0.73;2011:1.24) and invasive cancers (2004:4.42;2011:5.07), whereas the ICR remained stable (2004: 2.16 (95% CI2.06-2.25);2011: 2.13 (95% CI:2.04-2.22)). The RR changed significantly from 14.0 to 21.4. Programme sensitivity significantly increased, mainly between ages 49-59, from 70.0% (95% CI:68.9-71.2) to 74.4% (95% CI:73.5-75.4) whereas specificity slightly declined (2004:99.1% (95% CI:99.09-99.13);2011:98.5% (95% CI:98.45-98.50)). The overall DR was significantly higher for DM than for SFM (6.24;5.36) as was programme sensitivity (73.6%;70.1%), the ICR was similar (2.19;2.20) and specificity was significantly lower for DM (98.5%;98.9%)., Conclusions: During the transition from SFM to DM, there was a significant rise in DR and a stable ICR, leading to increased programme sensitivity. Although the recall rate increased, programme specificity remained high compared to other countries. These findings indicate that the performance of DM in a nationwide screening programme is not inferior to, and may be even better, than that of SFM.

Importance: Given recent advances in screening mammography and adjuvant therapy (treatment), quantifying their separate and combined effects on US breast cancer mortality reductions by molecular subtype could guide future decisions to reduce disease burden., Objective: To evaluate the contributions associated with screening and treatment to breast cancer mortality reductions by molecular subtype based on estrogen-receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2, formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) models simulated US breast cancer mortality from 2000 to 2012 using national data on plain-film and digital mammography patterns and performance, dissemination and efficacy of ER/ERBB2-specific treatment, and competing mortality. Multiple US birth cohorts were simulated., Exposures: Screening mammography and treatment., Main Outcomes and Measures: The models compared age-adjusted, overall, and ER/ERBB2-specific breast cancer mortality rates from 2000 to 2012 for women aged 30 to 79 years relative to the estimated mortality rate in the absence of screening and treatment (baseline rate); mortality reductions were apportioned to screening and treatment., Results: In 2000, the estimated reduction in overall breast cancer mortality rate was 37% (model range, 27%-42%) relative to the estimated baseline rate in 2000 of 64 deaths (model range, 56-73) per 100 000 women: 44% (model range, 35%-60%) of this reduction was associated with screening and 56% (model range, 40%-65%) with treatment. In 2012, the estimated reduction in overall breast cancer mortality rate was 49% (model range, 39%-58%) relative to the estimated baseline rate in 2012 of 63 deaths (model range, 54-73) per 100 000 women: 37% (model range, 26%-51%) of this reduction was associated with screening and 63% (model range, 49%-74%) with treatment. Of the 63% associated with treatment, 31% (model range, 22%-37%) was associated with chemotherapy, 27% (model range, 18%-36%) with hormone therapy, and 4% (model range, 1%-6%) with trastuzumab. The estimated relative contributions associated with screening vs treatment varied by molecular subtype: for ER+/ERBB2-, 36% (model range, 24%-50%) vs 64% (model range, 50%-76%); for ER+/ERBB2+, 31% (model range, 23%-41%) vs 69% (model range, 59%-77%); for ER-/ERBB2+, 40% (model range, 34%-47%) vs 60% (model range, 53%-66%); and for ER-/ERBB2-, 48% (model range, 38%-57%) vs 52% (model range, 44%-62%)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulation modeling study that projected trends in breast cancer mortality rates among US women, decreases in overall breast cancer mortality from 2000 to 2012 were associated with advances in screening and in adjuvant therapy, although the associations varied by breast cancer molecular subtype.

Introduction: Women with a strong family history of breast cancer (BC) and without a known gene mutation have an increased risk of developing BC. We aimed to investigate the accuracy of screening using annual mammography with or without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for these women outside the general population screening program., Methods: An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was conducted using IPD from six prospective screening trials that had included women at increased risk for BC: only women with a strong familial risk for BC and without a known gene mutation were included in this analysis. A generalised linear mixed model was applied to estimate and compare screening accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) for annual mammography with or without MRI., Results: There were 2226 women (median age: 41 years, interquartile range 35-47) with 7478 woman-years of follow-up, with a BC rate of 12 (95% confidence interval 9.3-14) in 1000 woman-years. Mammography screening had a sensitivity of 55% (standard error of mean [SE] 7.0) and a specificity of 94% (SE 1.3). Screening with MRI alone had a sensitivity of 89% (SE 4.6) and a specificity of 83% (SE 2.8). Adding MRI to mammography increased sensitivity to 98% (SE 1.8, P < 0.01 compared to mammography alone) but lowered specificity to 79% (SE 2.7, P < 0.01 compared with mammography alone)., Conclusion: In this population of women with strong familial BC risk but without a known gene mutation, in whom BC incidence was high both before and after age 50, adding MRI to mammography substantially increased screening sensitivity but also decreased its specificity., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Long-term follow-up data on the effects of screening are scarce, and debate exists on the relative contribution of screening versus treatment to breast cancer mortality reduction. Our aim was therefore to assess the long-term effect of screening by age and time of implementation. We obtained data on 69,630 breast cancer deaths between 1980 and 2010 by municipality (N = 431) and age of death (40-79) in the Netherlands. Breast cancer mortality trends were analyzed by defining the municipality-specific calendar year of introduction of screening as Year 0. Additionally, log-linear Poisson regression was used to estimate the turning point in the trend after Year 0, per municipality, and the annual percentage change (APC) before and after this point. Twenty years after introduction of screening breast cancer mortality was reduced by 30% in women aged 55-74 and by 34% in women aged 75-79, compared to Year 0. A similar and significant decrease was present in municipalities that started early (1987-1992) and late (1995-1997) with screening, despite the difference in availability of effective adjuvant treatment. In the age groups 55-74 and 75-79, the turning point in the trend in breast cancer mortality was estimated in Years 2 and 6 after the introduction of screening, respectively, after which mortality decreased significantly by 1.9% and 2.6% annually. These findings show that the implementation of mammography screening in Dutch municipalities is associated with a significant decline in breast cancer mortality in women aged 55-79, irrespective of time of implementation., (© 2017 UICC.)

Objective Fluctuations in the incidence of breast cancer in Norway in the last three decades are partly explained by the use of hormone replacement therapy and mammography screening, but overdiagnosis has also been suggested as a cause. We assessed the trends in breast cancer incidence and overdiagnosis in Norway. Methods We calibrated our microsimulation model to Norwegian Cancer Registration data. The model takes into account the use of mammography (both within and outside the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme) and of hormone replacement therapy. We obtained a proper fit of breast cancer incidence in recent years, when assuming an increase in the background risk for breast cancer, and estimated overdiagnosis. Results We estimated a 2% overdiagnosis rate as a fraction of all cancers diagnosed in women aged 50-100, and a 3% overdiagnosis rate as a fraction of all cancers diagnosed in women aged 50-70 (i.e. screening age). If all of the increased incidence would be the result of the detection of slow growing tumours, these estimates were 7% and 11%, respectively. Conclusion Besides mammography and hormone replacement therapy use, additional risk factors contributed to the sudden increase in breast cancer incidence in Norway. Overdiagnosis estimates due to screening were within the range of international plausible estimates.

Objective: Although early detection of cancer through screening can prevent cancer deaths, a drawback of screening is overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis has been much debated in breast cancer screening, but less so in cervical cancer screening. We examined the impact of overdiagnosis by comparing two screening programmes in the Netherlands., Methods: We estimated overdiagnosis rates by microsimulation for breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening, using a cohort of women born in 1982 with lifelong follow-up. Overdiagnosis estimates were made analogous to two definitions formed by the UK 2012 breast screening review. Pre-invasive disease was included in both definitions., Results: Screening prevented 921 cervical cancers (-55%) and 378 cervical cancer deaths (-59%), and 169 (-1.3%) breast cancer cases and 970 breast cancer deaths (-21%). The cervical cancer overdiagnosis rate was 74.8% (including pre-invasive disease). Breast cancer overdiagnosis was estimated at 2.5% (including pre-invasive disease). For women of all ages in breast cancer screening, an excess of 207 diagnoses/100,000 women was found, compared with an excess of 3999 diagnoses/100,000 women in cervical cancer screening., Conclusions: For breast cancer, the frequency of overdiagnosis in screening is relatively low, but consequences are evident. For cervical cancer, the frequency of overdiagnosis in screening is high, because of detection of pre-invasive disease, but the consequences per case are relatively small due to less invasive treatment. This illustrates that it is necessary to present overdiagnosis in relation to disease stage and consequences., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Background: Biennial screening is generally recommended for average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, but tailored screening may provide greater benefits., Objective: To estimate outcomes for various screening intervals after age 50 years based on breast density and risk for breast cancer., Design: Collaborative simulation modeling using national incidence, breast density, and screening performance data., Setting: United States., Patients: Women aged 50 years or older with various combinations of breast density and relative risk (RR) of 1.0, 1.3, 2.0, or 4.0., Intervention: Annual, biennial, or triennial digital mammography screening from ages 50 to 74 years (vs. no screening) and ages 65 to 74 years (vs. biennial digital mammography from ages 50 to 64 years)., Measurements: Lifetime breast cancer deaths, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive mammograms, benign biopsy results, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, and ratio of false-positive results to breast cancer deaths averted., Results: Screening benefits and overdiagnosis increase with breast density and RR. False-positive mammograms and benign results on biopsy decrease with increasing risk. Among women with fatty breasts or scattered fibroglandular density and an RR of 1.0 or 1.3, breast cancer deaths averted were similar for triennial versus biennial screening for both age groups (50 to 74 years, median of 3.4 to 5.1 vs. 4.1 to 6.5 deaths averted; 65 to 74 years, median of 1.5 to 2.1 vs. 1.8 to 2.6 deaths averted). Breast cancer deaths averted increased with annual versus biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years at all levels of breast density and an RR of 4.0, and those aged 65 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and an RR of 4.0. However, harms were almost 2-fold higher. Triennial screening for the average-risk subgroup and annual screening for the highest-risk subgroup cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained., Limitation: Models did not consider women younger than 50 years, those with an RR less than 1, or other imaging methods., Conclusion: Average-risk women with low breast density undergoing triennial screening and higher-risk women with high breast density receiving annual screening will maintain a similar or better balance of benefits and harms than average-risk women receiving biennial screening., Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Purpose: BRCA1 mutation carriers are offered screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography. The aim of this study was to weigh benefits and risks of postponing mammographic screening until age 40., Methods: With the MISCAN microsimulation model two screening protocols were evaluated: 1) the current Dutch guidelines: annual MRI from age 25-60, annual mammography from age 30-60, and biennial mammography in the nationwide program from age 60-74, and 2) the modified protocol: with annual mammography postponed until age 40. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The risks of radiation-induced breast cancer mortality were estimated with absolute and relative exposure-risk models of the 7th Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation Committee., Results: Current screening guidelines prevent 13,139 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 BRCA1 mutation carriers. Postponing mammography until age 40 would increase breast cancer deaths by 23 (0.17%), but would also reduce radiation-induced breast cancer deaths by 15 or 105 using the absolute and relative risk model respectively per 100,000 women screened. The estimated net effect is an increase of eight or a reduction of 82 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 women screened (depending on the risk model used). The incremental cost of mammograms between age 30-39 is €272,900 per life year gained., Conclusions: The modified protocol may be slightly less effective or even better than the current guidelines. The high cost-savings justify a possible small loss of effectiveness., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies., Objective: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer., Design: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality., Setting: United States., Patients: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity., Intervention: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years., Measurements: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens., Results: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years., Limitation: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered., Conclusion: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Potential Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed

Background: Estimates of risk for radiation-induced breast cancer from mammography screening have not considered variation in dose exposure or diagnostic work-up after abnormal screening results., Objective: To estimate distributions of radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening while considering exposure from screening and diagnostic mammography and dose variation among women., Design: 2 simulation-modeling approaches., Setting: U.S. population., Patients: Women aged 40 to 74 years., Intervention: Annual or biennial digital mammography screening from age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years., Measurements: Lifetime breast cancer deaths averted (benefits) and radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality (harms) per 100,000 women screened., Results: Annual screening of 100,000 women aged 40 to 74 years was projected to induce 125 breast cancer cases (95% CI, 88 to 178) leading to 16 deaths (CI, 11 to 23), relative to 968 breast cancer deaths averted by early detection from screening. Women exposed at the 95th percentile were projected to develop 246 cases of radiation-induced breast cancer leading to 32 deaths per 100,000 women. Women with large breasts requiring extra views for complete examination (8% of population) were projected to have greater radiation-induced breast cancer risk (266 cancer cases and 35 deaths per 100,000 women) than other women (113 cancer cases and 15 deaths per 100,000 women). Biennial screening starting at age 50 years reduced risk for radiation-induced cancer 5-fold., Limitation: Life-years lost from radiation-induced breast cancer could not be estimated., Conclusion: Radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening are affected by dose variability from screening, resultant diagnostic work-up, initiation age, and screening frequency. Women with large breasts may have a greater risk for radiation-induced breast cancer., Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, National Cancer Institute.

Women with extremely dense breasts have an increased risk of breast cancer and lower mammographic tumor detectability. Nevertheless, in most countries, these women are currently screened with mammography only. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has the potential to improve breast cancer detection at an early stage because of its higher sensitivity. However, MR imaging is more expensive and is expected to be accompanied by an increase in the number of false-positive results and, possibly, an increase in overdiagnosis. To study the additional value of MR imaging, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design is needed in which one group undergoes mammography and the other group undergoes mammography and MR imaging. With this design, it is possible to determine the proportion of interval cancers within each study arm. For this to be an effective screening strategy, the additional cancers detected at MR imaging screening must be accompanied by a subsequent reduction in interval cancers. The Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening, or DENSE, trial is a multicenter RCT performed in the Dutch biennial population-based screening program (subject age range, 50-75 years). The study was approved by the Dutch Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. In this study, mammographic density is measured by using a fully automated volumetric method. Participants with extremely dense breasts (American College of Radiology breast density category 4) and a negative result at mammography (Breast Imaging Recording and Data System category 1 or 2) are randomly assigned to undergo additional MR imaging (n = 7237) or to be treated according to current practice (n = 28 948). Participants provide written informed consent before the MR imaging examination, which consists of dynamic breast MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast medium and is intended to be performed for three consecutive screening rounds. The primary outcome is the difference in the proportions of interval cancers between the study arms. Secondary outcomes are the number of MR imaging screening-detected cancers, proportions of false-positive results, diagnostic yield of MR imaging, tumor characteristics, quality of life, and cost effectiveness., (© RSNA, 2015)

In the Netherlands, routine mammography screening starts at age 50. This starting age may have to be reconsidered because of the increasing breast cancer incidence among women aged 40 to 49 and the recent implementation of digital mammography. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening that starts between age 40 and 49, using a microsimulation model. Women were screened before age 50, in addition to the current programme (biennial 50-74). Screening strategies varied in starting age (between 40 and 50) and frequency (annual or biennial). The numbers of breast cancers diagnosed, life-years gained (LYG) and breast cancer deaths averted were predicted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare screening scenarios. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 (current strategy) was estimated to gain 157 life years per 1,000 women with lifelong follow-up, compared to a situation without screening, and cost €3,376/LYG (3.5% discounted). Additional screening increased the number of LYG, compared to no screening, ranging from 168 to 242. The costs to generate one additional LYG (i.e., ICER), comparing a screening strategy to the less intensive alternative, were estimated at €5,329 (biennial 48-74 vs. current strategy), €7,628 (biennial 45-74 vs. biennial 48-74), €10,826 (biennial 40-74 vs. biennial 45-74) and €18,759 (annual 40-49 + biennial 50-74 vs. biennial 40-74). Other strategies (49 + biennial 50-74 and annual 45-49 + biennial 50-74) resulted in less favourable ICERs. These findings show that extending the Dutch screening programme by screening between age 40 and 49 is cost-effective, particularly for biennial strategies., (© 2015 UICC.)

Adding MRI to annual mammography screening improves early breast cancer detection in women with familial risk or BRCA1/2 mutation, but breast cancer specific metastasis free survival (MFS) remains unknown. We compared MFS of patients from the largest prospective MRI Screening Study (MRISC) with 1:1 matched controls. Controls, unscreened if<50 years, and screened with biennial mammography if ≥50 years, were matched on risk category (BRCA1, BRCA2, familial risk), year and age of diagnosis. Of 2,308 MRISC participants, breast cancer was detected in 93 (97 breast cancers), who received MRI <2 years before breast cancer diagnosis; 33 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 18 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 42 with familial risk. MRISC patients had smaller (87% vs. 52%

Adjuvant systemic therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality. The additional effect of mammography screening remains uncertain, in particular for women aged 40-49 years. We therefore assessed the effects of screening starting between age 40 and 50, as compared to the effects of adjuvant systemic therapy. The use of adjuvant endocrine therapy, chemotherapy and the combination of endocrine- and chemotherapy, as well as the uptake of mammography screening in the Netherlands was modeled using micro-simulation. The effects of screening and treatment were modeled based on randomized controlled trials. The effects of adjuvant therapy, biennial screening between age 50 and 74 in the presence of adjuvant therapy, and extending the screening programme by starting at age 40 were assessed by comparing breast cancer mortality in women aged 0-100 years in scenarios with and without these interventions. In 2008, adjuvant treatment was estimated to have reduced the breast cancer mortality rate in the simulated population by 13.9%, compared to a situation without treatment. Biennial screening between age 50 and 74 further reduced the mortality rate by 15.7%. Extending screening to age 48 would lower the mortality rate by 1.0% compared to screening from age 50; 10 additional screening rounds between age 40 and 49 would reduce this rate by 5.1%. Adjuvant systemic therapy and screening reduced breast cancer mortality in similar amounts. Expanding the lower age limit of screening would further reduce breast cancer mortality., (© 2014 UICC.)

Background: The aim of this study was to quantify the benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years, focusing on the amount of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)., Methods: Three well-established microsimulation models were used to simulate a cohort of American women born in 1960. All women received biennial screening starting at age 50 years with cessation ages varying from 74 up to 96 years. We estimated the number of life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life-years, breast cancer deaths averted, false-positives, and overdiagnosed women per 1000 screens., Results: The models predicted that there were 7.8 to 11.4 LYG per 1000 screens at age 74 years (range across models), decreasing to 4.8 to 7.8 LYG per 1000 screens at age 80 years, and 1.4 to 2.4 LYG per 1000 screens at age 90 years. When adjusted for quality-of-life decrements, the LYG decreased by 5% to 13% at age 74 years and 11% to 22% at age 80 years. At age 90 to 92 years, all LYG were counterbalanced by a loss in quality-of-life, mainly because of the increasing number of overdiagnosed breast cancers per 1000 screens: 1.2 to 5.0 at age 74 years, 1.8 to 6.0 at age 80 years, and 3.7 to 7.5 at age 90 years. The age at which harms began to outweigh benefits shifted to a younger age when larger or longer utility losses because of a breast cancer diagnosis were assumed., Conclusion: The balance between screening benefits and harms becomes less favorable after age 74 years. At age 90 years, harms outweigh benefits, largely as a consequence of overdiagnosis. This age was the same across the three models, despite important model differences in assumptions on DCIS., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides mammograms and diagnostic services for low-income, uninsured women aged 40-64 years. Mammography facilities within the NBCCEDP gradually shifted from plain-film to digital mammography. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of replacing film with digital mammography on health effects (deaths averted, life-years gained [LYG]); costs (for screening and diagnostics); and number of women reached., Methods: NBCCEDP 2010 data and data representative of the program's target population were used in two established microsimulation models. Models simulated observed screening behavior including different screening intervals (annual, biennial, irregular) and starting ages (40, 50 years) for white, black, and Hispanic women. Model runs were performed in 2012., Results: The models predicted 8.0-8.3 LYG per 1,000 film screens for black women, 5.9-7.5 for white women, and 4.0-4.5 for Hispanic women. For all race/ethnicity groups, digital mammography had more LYG than film mammography (2%-4%), but had higher costs (34%-35%). Assuming a fixed budget, 25%-26% fewer women could be served, resulting in 22%-24% fewer LYG if all mammograms were converted to digital. The loss in LYG could be reversed to an 8%-13% increase by only including biennial screening., Conclusions: Digital could result in slightly more LYG than film mammography. However, with a fixed budget, fewer women may be served with fewer LYG. Changes in the program, such as only including biennial screening, will increase LYG/screen and could offset the potential decrease in LYG when shifting to digital mammography., (Copyright © 2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness., Objective: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts., Design: Comparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models., Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature., Target Population: Contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: Payer., Intervention: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result., Outcome Measures: Breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs., Results of Base-Case Analysis: Supplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a false-positive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325,000 per QALY gained (range, $112,000 to $766,000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246,000 per QALY gained (range, $74,000 to $535,000)., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age., Limitation: Provider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered., Conclusion: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits., Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Purpose: There is no consensus on whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be included in breast screening protocols for women with BRCA1/2 mutations age ≥ 50 years. Therefore, we investigated the evidence on age-related screening accuracy in women with BRCA1/2 mutations using individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis., Patients and Methods: IPD were pooled from six high-risk screening trials including women with BRCA1/2 mutations who had completed at least one screening round with both MRI and mammography. A generalized linear mixed model with repeated measurements and a random effect of studies estimated sensitivity and specificity of MRI, mammography, and the combination in all women and specifically in those age ≥ 50 years., Results: Pooled analysis showed that in women age ≥ 50 years, screening sensitivity was not different from that in women age < 50 years, whereas screening specificity was. In women age ≥ 50 years, combining MRI and mammography significantly increased screening sensitivity compared with mammography alone (94.1%; 95% CI, 77.7% to 98.7% v 38.1%; 95% CI, 22.4% to 56.7%; P < .001). The combination was not significantly more sensitive than MRI alone (94.1%; 95% CI, 77.7% to 98.7% v 84.4%; 95% CI, 61.8% to 94.8%; P = .28). Combining MRI and mammography in women age ≥ 50 years resulted in sensitivity similar to that in women age < 50 years (94.1%; 95% CI, 77.7% to 98.7% v 93.2%; 95% CI, 79.3% to 98%; P = .79)., Conclusion: Addition of MRI to mammography for screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers age ≥ 50 years improves screening sensitivity by a magnitude similar to that observed in younger women. Limiting screening MRI in BRCA1/2 carriers age ≥ 50 years should be reconsidered., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)