Your cart is currently empty!
Evaluation of a Stratified National Breast Screening Program in the United Kingdom: An Early Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
All your purchased models will be available under your account under “Dashboards”
Disease Area (Primary)
Breast Screening Programs
First Developed
05/16/2025
Last Developed
06/30/2025
Software Used
R (e.g., heemod, BCEA, dampack, hesim)
Model Sponsor
Government agency
Intervention
stratified_screening
Model Validation Score
– %
Coming Soon In Phase II: You will be able to pay a fee to download the CADTH Tool for your model which includes subaggregated scores.
Results
The base-case analysis, supported by probabilistic sensitivity analysis, suggested that the risk stratified NBSPs (risk 1 and risk-2) were relatively cost-effective when compared with the current UK NBSP, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £16,689 per QALY and £23,924 per QALY, respectively. Stratified NBSP including masking approaches (supplemental screening for women with higher breast density) was not a cost-effective alternative, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £212,947 per QALY (masking) and £75,254 per QALY (risk 1 and masking). When compared with no screening, all stratified NBSPs could be considered cost-effective.
Conclusion
This early model-based CEA presents indicative results that suggest that a risk stratified NBSP is potentially a cost-effective use of health care resources when compared with the current UK NBSP. The proposed model structure will be a key resource as more data become available to support the introduction of stratified NBSP such as the sensitivity and effectiveness of the new screening modalities, the effect of risk communication strategies on NBSP uptake, and the cost of newer treatments for breast cancer.
Source File(s)
Model:
Publication File:
Publication File 1:
Publication File 2:
Publication File 3:
Publication File 4:
No link submitted.
No link submitted.
No link submitted.
No link submitted.
Model Review
Only visible for the model owner
Summary
Validation Score
– %
Internal Comments
–

