Table 1. Parameter values for modelling cost–effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening programme launched in 2012 in urban China.
| Variables | Baseline | Minimum | Maximum | Distribution | Reference/source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease state progression transition probabilities | |||||
| Age-specific incidence, years | |||||
| 40–44 | 0.0006100 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| 45–49 | 0.0010056 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| 50–54 | 0.0011650 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| 55–59 | 0.0011179 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| 60–64 | 0.0010458 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| 65–69 | 0.0009782 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| 70–74 | 0.0009912 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| 75–79 | 0.0009067 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| 80–84 | 0.0007803 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| ≥ 85 | 0.0006430 | – | – | – | Chinese Cancer Registry Annual Report3 |
| Ratio of DCIS incidence to invasive breast cancer incidence | 0.12 | – | – | – | Lu et al.28 |
| RR of invasive cancer from DICS | 2.02 | – | – | – | SEER Program4 |
| Progression rate | |||||
| Stage I–Stage II | 0.06 | – | – | – | Tsokos & Oğuztöreli25 |
| Stage II–Stage III | 0.11 | – | – | – | Tsokos & Oğuztöreli25 |
| Stage III–Stage IV | 0.15 | – | – | – | Tsokos & Oğuztöreli25 |
| Stage IV–death | 0.23 | – | – | – | Wong et al.8 |
| Stage-specific probability of symptoms | |||||
| Stage I | 0.004 | – | – | – | Model calibration |
| Stage II | 0.014 | – | – | – | Model calibration |
| Stage III | 0.380 | – | – | – | Model calibration |
| Stage IV | 0.980 | – | – | – | Model calibration |
| Annual fatality rate after treatment | |||||
| Stage I | 0.006 | – | – | – | Ginsberg et al.27 |
| Stage II | 0.042 | – | – | – | Ginsberg et al.27 |
| Stage III | 0.093 | – | – | – | Ginsberg et al.27 |
| Stage IV | 0.275 | – | – | – | Ginsberg et al.27 |
| Effectiveness of screening | |||||
| Ultrasound followed by mammography if requireda | |||||
| Sensitivity | 0.848 | 0.681 | 0.949 | Beta | Huang et al.29 |
| Specificity | 0.994 | 0.990 | 0.996 | Beta | Huang et al.29 |
| Ultrasound and mammographyb | |||||
| Sensitivity | 0.939 | 0.798 | 0.993 | Beta | Huang et al.29 |
| Specificity | 0.980 | 0.975 | 0.985 | Beta | Huang et al.29 |
| Utility scores | |||||
| Stage I | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.80 | Log-normal | Shi et al.30 |
| Stage II | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.80 | Log-normal | Shi et al.30 |
| Stage III |
0.77 |
0.76 |
0.79 |
Log-normal |
Shi et al.30 |
| Stage IV |
0.69 |
0.65 |
0.72 |
Log-normal |
Shi et al.30 |
| Disutility from false-positive |
0.25 |
0.11 |
0.34 |
Log-normal |
Peasgood et al.31 |
|
Costs, US$ |
|
||||
| Questionnaire |
1.6 |
1.1 |
2.1 |
Gamma |
Cancer Screening Programme in Urban China32 |
| Screening |
85.5 |
59.8 |
111.1 |
Gamma |
Cancer Screening Programme in Urban China32 |
| Biopsy |
45.6 |
31.0 |
59.3 |
Gamma |
Cancer Screening Programme in Urban China32 |
| Treatment costs |
|||||
| DCIS |
2435 |
1705 |
3166 |
Gamma |
Li et al.33 |
| Stage I | 10 067 | 7047 | 13 087 | Gamma | Liao et al.34 |
| Stage II | 11 068 | 7748 | 14 388 | Gamma | Liao et al.34 |
| Stage III | 12 867 | 9007 | 16 727 | Gamma | Liao et al.34 |
| Stage IV | 17 766 | 12 436 | 23 096 | Gamma | Liao et al.34 |
DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; US$: United States dollars.
a For women aged 40–44 years.
b For women aged 45–69 years.