TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mammography-Based Breast Cancer Screening in Indonesia
AU - Icanervilia, Ajeng V
AU - Poelhekken, Keris
AU - At Thobari, Jarir
AU - Choridah, Lina
AU - Hutajulu, Susanna H
AU - de Bock, Geertruida H
AU - Postma, Maarten J
AU - Greuter, Marcel J W
AU - van Asselt, Antoinette D I
N1 - Copyright © 2025 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2025/4/2
Y1 - 2025/4/2
N2 - OBJECTIVES: The Indonesian government has not implemented mammography as national screening program. Therefore, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mammography-based breast cancer screening strategy in Indonesia from a societal perspective.METHODS: The Simulation Model on radiation Risk and breast cancer Screening was used to examine various breast cancer screening scenarios, including different screening age (40-65 vs 35-65 years), frequency (every 2, 3, 4, or 5 years), and participation rate (50%, 70%, and 100%). The model's input parameters were independently derived from published population statistics and systematic literature.RESULTS: Our findings indicate that, across all scenarios, mammography screening was cost-effective compared with no screening under the following conditions: (1) screening women aged 40 to 65 every 4 years at 50% participation rate, (2) screening women aged 40 to 65 every 4 years at 70% participation rate, (3) screening women aged 40 to 65 every 3 years at 70% participation rate, and (4) screening women aged 40 to 65 every 2 years at 100% participation rate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios these scenarios compared with the next best alternative were $4758 per life year gained (US dollars/LYG), $5263/LYG, $5436/LYG, and $7569/LYG, respectively, all of which were less than 3 times Indonesia's gross domestic product per capita.CONCLUSIONS: We recommend implementing mammography screening as a national program in Indonesia. The cost-effectiveness of screening strategies depends on factors such as participation rates, screening age, frequency, and the government's willingness-to-pay threshold. We recognize Indonesia's competing health priorities and limited resources. Acknowledging these priorities will help policymakers in making informed decisions about resource allocation.
AB - OBJECTIVES: The Indonesian government has not implemented mammography as national screening program. Therefore, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mammography-based breast cancer screening strategy in Indonesia from a societal perspective.METHODS: The Simulation Model on radiation Risk and breast cancer Screening was used to examine various breast cancer screening scenarios, including different screening age (40-65 vs 35-65 years), frequency (every 2, 3, 4, or 5 years), and participation rate (50%, 70%, and 100%). The model's input parameters were independently derived from published population statistics and systematic literature.RESULTS: Our findings indicate that, across all scenarios, mammography screening was cost-effective compared with no screening under the following conditions: (1) screening women aged 40 to 65 every 4 years at 50% participation rate, (2) screening women aged 40 to 65 every 4 years at 70% participation rate, (3) screening women aged 40 to 65 every 3 years at 70% participation rate, and (4) screening women aged 40 to 65 every 2 years at 100% participation rate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios these scenarios compared with the next best alternative were $4758 per life year gained (US dollars/LYG), $5263/LYG, $5436/LYG, and $7569/LYG, respectively, all of which were less than 3 times Indonesia's gross domestic product per capita.CONCLUSIONS: We recommend implementing mammography screening as a national program in Indonesia. The cost-effectiveness of screening strategies depends on factors such as participation rates, screening age, frequency, and the government's willingness-to-pay threshold. We recognize Indonesia's competing health priorities and limited resources. Acknowledging these priorities will help policymakers in making informed decisions about resource allocation.
U2 - 10.1016/j.vhri.2025.101112
DO - 10.1016/j.vhri.2025.101112
M3 - Article
C2 - 40179524
SN - 2212-1099
VL - 48
JO - Value in Health Regional Issues
JF - Value in Health Regional Issues
M1 - 101112
ER -