Search

Simple Summary: Early detection of breast cancer in asymptomatic women through screening is an important strategy in reducing the burden of breast cancer. In current organized breast screening programs, age is the predominant risk factor. Breast cancer risk assessment tools are numerical models that can combine information on various risk factors to estimate the risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer within a certain time period. These tools could be used to offer risk-based screening. This systematic review assessed, using a variety of methods, how accurately breast cancer risk assessment tools can group women eligible for screening within a population, into risk groups, so that each group could potentially be offered a screening protocol with more benefits and less harms compared to current age-based screening. Background: The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose. Methods: Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008–20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST. Results: Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias. Conclusion: Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several evaluations of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) have been reported. The aim of this study was to systematically and critically review economic evaluations of MHT since 2002, after the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial results on MHT were published.Methods: The inclusion criteria for the review were: CE analyses of MHT versus no treatment, published from 2002-2016, in healthy women, which included both symptom relief outcomes and a range of longer term health outcomes (breast cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, fractures and colorectal cancer). Included economic models had outcomes expressed in cost per quality-adjusted life year or cost per life year saved. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched. CE evaluations were assessed in regard to (i) reporting standards using the CHEERS checklist and Drummond checklist; (ii) data sources for the utility of MHT with respect to menopausal symptom relief; (iii) cost derivation; (iv) outcomes considered in the models; and (v) the comprehensiveness of the models with respect to factors related to MHT use that impact long term outcomes, using breast cancer as an example outcome.Results: Five studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were identified which modelled cohorts of women aged 50 and older who used combination or estrogen-only MHT for 5-15 years. For women 50-60 years of age, all evaluations found MHT to be cost-effective and below the willingness-to-pay threshold of the country for which the analysis was conducted. However, 3 analyses based the quality of life (QOL) benefit for symptom relief on one small primary study. Examination of costing methods identified a need for further clarity in the methodology used to aggregate costs from sources. Using breast cancer as an example outcome, risks as measured in the WHI were used in the majority of evaluations. Apart from the type and duration of MHT use, other effect modifiers for breast cancer outcomes (for example body mass index) were not considered.Conclusions: This systematic review identified issues which could impact the outcome of MHT CE analyses and the generalisability of their results. The estimated CE of MHT is driven largely by estimates of QOL improvements associated with symptom relief but data sources on these utility weights are limited. Future analyses should carefully consider data sources and the evidence on the long term risks of MHT use in terms of chronic disease. This review highlights the considerable difficulties in conducting cost-effectiveness analyses in situations where short term benefits of an intervention must be evaluated in the context of long term health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT) use in Australia fell by 55% from 2001 to 2005, following the release of large-scale findings on its risks and benefits. Comprehensive national data, including information on overall prevalence of MHT use as well as information on duration of use in Australia have not been reported since the 2004–5 National Health Survey, when 11% of women aged 45+ years were estimated to be current MHT users. No national data are available on prevalence of use of “bioidentical” hormone therapy (BHT). The objective of this study was to determine recent prevalence of MHT and BHT use. A cross-sectional, national, age-stratified, population survey was conducted in 2013. Eligible women, aged 50–69 years, resident in Australia were randomly sampled in 5-year age groups from the Medicare enrolment database (Australia’s universal health scheme). The response rate was 22% based on return of completed questionnaires, and analyses were restricted to 4,389 women within the specified age range. The estimated population-weighted prevalence of current use of MHT was 13% (95%CI 12–14), which was broadly similar to the previously reported national figures in 2004–5, suggesting that the use of MHT in Australia has largely stabilised over the past decade. A total of 39% and 20% of current-users with an intact uterus reported use of oestrogen-progestagen MHT and oestrogen-only MHT, respectively, whereas 77% of hysterectomised current-users used oestrogen-only MHT. Almost three-quarters of current-users [population-weighted prevalence 9% (95%CI 8–10)] had used MHT for ≥5 years. In regard to BHT, estimated population-weighted prevalence of ever use was 6% (95%CI 6–7) and 2% (95%CI 2–3) for current use. The population-weighted prevalence of MHT and BHT combined, in current users in their fifties and sixties was 15% (95%CI 14–16). These data provide a recent national “snapshot” of Australian women’s use of both conventional MHT and of BHT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]