Lower recurrence risk through mammographic screening reduces breast cancer treatment costs.

Mammographic screening is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer recurrence. The objective of the study was to evaluate treatment costs due to breast cancer recurrence in relation to patients' use of mammographic screening, consecutively collected in a defined population. The study included 418 women exposed to screening and 109 women unexposed to screening diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer. During the first eight years after primary diagnosis, 19% (N=80) of the exposed women and 33% (N=36) of the unexposed women developed recurrent disease, P=0.002. In the exposed group, 41% of the 8-year treatment costs were for the treatment of patients who developed recurrent disease, compared with 52% in the unexposed group, P=0.039. Among the relapsed patients, the mean post-recurrence costs were EUR14,950, accounting for 65% of their total 8-year costs. The mean post-recurrence costs were comparable for both exposure groups irrespective of the detection method.

Population-based mammography screening results in substantial savings in treatment costs for fatal breast cancer.

AIMS: The aim was to assess the effect of population-based mammography screening on treatment costs for fatal breast cancer in Turku, Finland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 556 women with invasive breast cancer, diagnosed at the age of 40-74 years in 1987-1993: 427 in the screened group (screen-detected or interval cancer) and 129 in the unscreened group (not yet invited or refused screening). Both groups were followed up for 8 years from diagnosis. RESULTS: In the unscreened group, 32 (25%) patients died of breast cancer versus 49 (12%) in the screened group (p < 0.001). The non-discounted mean treatment costs were 2.8-fold for those dying of breast cancer compared to survivors: 26,222 euros versus 9,434 euros; the difference between means was 16,788 euros (95% CI 14,915-18,660) (p<0.001). The mean costs for fatal cases were high, irrespective of the way cancer was detected: 23,800 euros in the unscreened group versus 27,803 euros in the screened group; the difference between means was -4,003 euros (-10,810 to 2802) (p=0.245). In the unscreened group, patients with fatal breast cancer accounted for 41% (0.76/1.87 million euros) of the total treatment costs versus 29% (1.36/4.76 million euros) in the screened group. It was estimated that about one third of costs for fatal breast cancer were avoided through mammography screening, accounting for 72-81% of the estimated total treatment cost savings achieved by screening. About 31-35% of the screening costs for 1987 to 1993 were offset by savings in treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment costs for fatal breast cancer are high. Mammography screening results in substantial treatment cost savings, in which reduction of fatal disease is the key element.

Mammographic screening reduces risk of breast carcinoma recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The current report is a long-term evaluation of breast carcinoma recurrence, factors predicting recurrence, and postrecurrence prognosis in relation to patients' use of service screening, which has been provided in Turku, Finland, since 1987 for women ages 40-74 years. METHODS: The current study included 527 invasive breast carcinomas: 418 in the screening group (which included screen-detected and interval malignancies) and 109 in the nonscreening group (which included breast carcinomas detected before initial screening and those detected in patients who chose not to undergo screening). These breast carcinomas were diagnosed among women ages 40-74 years between 1987 and 1993, with follow-up extending until the end of 2001. RESULTS: In the screening group, the risk of recurrence was only approximately half of the corresponding risk in the nonscreening group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.83; P = 0.003). Five years after the primary diagnosis, 16% of patients in the screening group and 28% of patients in the nonscreening group (P = 0.001) had experienced recurrence; 10 years after diagnosis, the corresponding rates were 21% and 34%, respectively (P = 0.001). Postrecurrence prognosis was comparable for both detection groups (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94; P = 0.551), with approximately half of all patients dying of disease 5 years after recurrence. Detection of breast carcinoma via a method other than mammographic screening was associated with a high risk of recurrence on univariate analysis. On Cox multivariate analysis, risk factors for recurrence included lobular histologic type (HR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.44-3.48; P < 0.001), poor histologic grade (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.20-3.39; P = 0.008), and large tumor size (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.07-2.37; P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term data from a population-based program demonstrated that mammographic screening reduced patients' risk of breast carcinoma recurrence. Specifically, the risk for patients with screen-detected disease was only approximately half of the risk for patients with non-screen-detected disease. Nonetheless, postrecurrence prognosis was comparable for patients in both detection groups.

Lower costs of hospital treatment of breast cancer through a population-based mammography screening programme.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the hospital treatment costs of invasive breast cancer in relation to the mode of detection, i.e. by mammography screening, between screenings or without screening during a population-based mammography screening programme, which started in 1987 among 36,000 women aged 40 to 74 years in the city of Turku, Southwest Finland. METHODS: The treatment costs and survival days of 556 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at the age of 40 to 74 years in 1987 to 1993 were followed up for five years from diagnosis or until death, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Screen-detected cancers had the lowest average costs. The mean treatment costs per patient were 1.4-fold for clinical cancers and 1.3-fold for interval cancers compared to screen-detected cancers (p<0.001). The corresponding ratios in the mean treatment costs per survival day were 3.5 for clinical cancers and 1.9 for interval cancers (p<0.001). The mean treatment costs per patient were 1.3-fold for the non-screened group (clinical cancers) compared to the screened group (screen-detected and interval cancers) (p<0.001). The corresponding ratio was 3, when the mean treatment costs per survival day were compared (p<0.001). The estimated savings resulting from early treatment were 26-30% measured as a proportion of the screening costs for 1987 to 1993. CONCLUSION: The treatment costs of screen-detected cancers are lower than those of cancers detected by other methods. The study shows the potential for reducing treatment costs through early detection of breast cancer by mammography screening.

Significant improvement in breast cancer survival through population-based mammography screening.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of population-based mammography screening on survival. A total of 176 908 screening examinations were performed in 36 000 women aged 40-74 during the years 1987-1997. Screen-detected and interval primary invasive breast cancers (n=685, screened) were more often smaller (P<0.0001), localised (P<0.0001) and histologically better differentiated (grade I vs II-III, P<0.0001) than pre-screening cancers and cancers detected after the defined interval from the last screening (n=184, clinical). Survival was far better in the "screened" group than in the "clinical" group (P<0.0001, HR 2.55; CI 95% 1.77-3.67). Cox's multivariate analysis revealed axillary lymph node negativity (P<0.0001), histological grade I (P=0.0005) and size less than or equal to 20mm (P=0.0118) as explanations of the beneficial effect of screening. A new observation we recorded was that screening had a beneficial effect even in women whose cancer had already spread into the axillary lymph nodes.