Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer control interventions in Peru.

OBJECTIVES: In Peru, a country with constrained health resources, breast cancer control is characterized by late stage treatment and poor survival. To support breast cancer control in Peru, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of different breast cancer control interventions relevant for the Peruvian context. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) according to WHO-CHOICE guidelines, from a healthcare perspective. Different screening, early detection, palliative, and treatment interventions were evaluated using mathematical modeling. Effectiveness estimates were based on observational studies, modeling, and on information from Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas (INEN). Resource utilizations and unit costs were based on estimates from INEN and observational studies. Cost-effectiveness estimates are in 2012 United States dollars (US$) per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. RESULTS: The current breast cancer program in Peru ($8,426 per DALY averted) could be improved through implementing triennial or biennial screening strategies. These strategies seem the most cost-effective in Peru, particularly when mobile mammography is applied (from $4,125 per DALY averted), or when both CBE screening and mammography screening are combined (from $4,239 per DALY averted). Triennially, these interventions costs between $63 million and $72 million per year. Late stage treatment, trastuzumab therapy and annual screening strategies are the least cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that breast cancer control in Peru should be oriented towards early detection through combining fixed and mobile mammography screening (age 45-69) triennially. However, a phased introduction of triennial CBE screening (age 40-69) with upfront FNA in non-urban settings, and both CBE (age 40-49) and fixed mammography screening (age 50-69) in urban settings, seems a more feasible option and is also cost-effective. The implementation of this intervention is only meaningful if awareness raising, diagnostic, referral, treatment and basic palliative services are simultaneously improved, and if financial and organizational barriers to these services are reduced.

Costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer control in Ghana.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer control in Ghana is characterised by low awareness, late-stage treatment and poor survival. In settings with severely constrained health resources, there is a need to spend money wisely. To achieve this and to guide policy makers in their selection of interventions, this study systematically compares costs and effects of breast cancer control interventions in Ghana. METHODS: We used a mathematical model to estimate costs and health effects of breast cancer interventions in Ghana from the healthcare perspective. Analyses were based on the WHO-CHOICE method, with health effects expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), costs in 2009 US dollars (US$) and cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) in US$ per DALY averted. Analyses were based on local demographic, epidemiological and economic data, to the extent these data were available. RESULTS: Biennial screening by clinical breast examination (CBE) of women aged 40-69 years, in combination with treatment of all stages, seems the most cost-effective intervention (costing $1299 per DALY averted). The intervention is also economically attractive according to international standards on cost-effectiveness. Mass media awareness raising (MAR) is the second best option (costing $1364 per DALY averted). Mammography screening of women of aged 40-69 years (costing $12,908 per DALY averted) cannot be considered cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Both CBE screening and MAR seem economically attractive interventions. Given the uncertainty about the effectiveness of these interventions, only their phased introduction, carefully monitored and evaluated, is warranted. Moreover, their implementation is only meaningful if the capacity of basic cancer diagnostic, referral and treatment and possibly palliative services is simultaneously improved.

Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of prevention, screening and treatment interventions for colorectal cancer are presented. METHODS: Standardised WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. A colorectal cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening and treatment effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness was determined via a population state-transition model (PopMod) that simulates the evolution of a sub-regional population accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Economic costs of procedures and treatment were estimated, including programme overhead and training costs. RESULTS: In regions characterised by high income, low mortality and high existing treatment coverage, the addition of screening to the current high treatment levels is very cost-effective, although no particular intervention stands out in cost-effectiveness terms relative to the others.In regions characterised by low income, low mortality with existing treatment coverage around 50%, expanding treatment with or without screening is cost-effective or very cost-effective. Abandoning treatment in favour of screening (no treatment scenario) would not be cost effective.In regions characterised by low income, high mortality and low treatment levels, the most cost-effective intervention is expanding treatment. CONCLUSIONS: From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, screening programmes should be expanded in developed regions and treatment programmes should be established for colorectal cancer in regions with low treatment coverage.