Table 5 The cost-effectiveness ratios of high risk-based breast cancer screening strategies in Urban Hebei Province.

From: Cost-effectiveness evaluation of risk-based breast cancer screening in Urban Hebei Province

Strategy

ACER

ICER

Cost

Benefit

Δ Cost*

Δ Benefit*

ACER

Δ Cost

Δ Benefit (QALY)

ICER (per QALY)

No screening

26,611.76

17.71

NA

NA

NA

US screening triennially

31,138.89

17.73

4527.13

0.03

170,038.67

ED

ED

ED

US screening biennially

31,174.57

17.74

4562.81

0.03

148,463.27

ED

ED

ED

US screening annually

31,366.35

17.75

4754.59

0.04

116,176.15

0.04

4754.59

116,176.15

MM screening triennially

34,369.99

17.73

7758.23

0.03

265,554.88

D

D

D

MM screening biennially

34,710.45

17.74

8098.69

0.03

232,435.04

D

D

D

MM screening annually

35,833.23

17.75

9221.47

0.05

188,963.87

0.01

4466.88

567,261.63

US + MM screening triennially

36,045.47

17.74

9433.71

0.03

312,164.66

D

D

D

US + MM screening biennially

36,620.15

17.74

10,008.39

0.04

274,677.25

D

D

D

US + MM screening annually

38,266.52

17.76

11,654.76

0.05

224,757.08

0

2433.29

796,560.57

  1. Incremental is denoted as ‘Δ’. Benefit and incremental benefit are measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is measured in cost per QALY. Incremental values are not reported for dominated (‘D’) or extendedly dominated (‘ED’) strategies; Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were estimated as the ratios of the additional costs of the screening strategies to the QALY compared to no screening.
  2. ‘*’Means the comparison with the no screening strategy.