Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39745700›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Mammography in Canada.

Anna N Wilkinson, James G Mainprize, Martin J Yaffe, Jessica Robinson, Erin Cordeiro, Nicole J Look Hong, Phillip Williams, Nikitha Moideen, Julie Renaud, Jean M Seely and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Earlier screening, better outcomes? Revisiting breast cancer screening guidelines for women in their 40s.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Canadian Breast Cancer Symposium 2025: Meeting Report.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Anna N WilkinsonFamily Medicine, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
James G MainprizePhysical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Martin J YaffePhysical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jessica RobinsonPharmacy, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Erin CordeiroDepartment of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Nicole J Look HongSurgery, University of Toronto St. George Campus, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Phillip WilliamsAnatomic Pathology, The Ottawa Hospital General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nikitha MoideenRadiation Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Julie RenaudSystemic Therapy, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jean M SeelyRadiology, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Moira RushtonMedical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Evolving breast cancer treatments have led to improved outcomes but carry a substantial financial burden. The association of treatment costs with the cost-effectiveness of screening mammography is unknown. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of population-based breast cancer screening in the context of current treatment standards. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer/Statistics Canada OncoSim-Breast microsimulation model was used to estimate the impact of various screening schedules in terms of clinical outcomes and treatment costs. Breast cancer treatment costs were derived from activity-based costing published in 2023 specific to a publicly funded health system in Ontario, Canada. A single birth cohort of individuals assigned female at birth in 1975 was modeled until death or age 99 years (whichever came first). Exposures: Five screening scenarios were modeled: no screening, biennial (ages 50-74 years and 40-74 years), hybrid (biennial ages 40-49 years and annual ages 50-74 years), and annual screening (ages 40-74 years). Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for deaths averted, life-years (LYs) gained, and incremental cost-utility ratios for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were determined for screening scenarios. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying screening participation rates and reducing recall rates to 5% and the estimated mortality benefits of screening. Results: Earlier initiation of breast cancer screening at age 40 years (vs age 50 years) was associated with improved clinical outcomes (deaths averted, LYs saved, and QALYs gained) and reduced health care spending on breast cancer treatment. From a health system perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for biennial screening at ages 40 to 74 years compared with biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years were cost saving, with CAD$49 759 saved per death averted, $1558 per LY saved, and $2007 saved per QALY gained. Annual screening at ages 40 to 74 years was cost-effective while achieving the best breast cancer outcomes, with costs of $25 501 per death averted, $1100 per LY saved, and $1447 per QALY gained compared with the current Canadian standard of biennial screening at ages 50 to 74 years. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic analysis, although screening costs increased according to the number of lifetime screens, they were completely or largely offset by reduced breast cancer therapy costs. Digital mammography was a highly cost-effective tool to reduce breast cancer mortality. These results have important policy implications for all single-payer health systems and call for greater investment in screening programs.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerMammographyAdultAgedCanadaFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOntarioQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID39745700
PMCPMC11696453

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.