Objective To determine the costs and health effects of interventions to combat breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in order to guide resource allocation decisions in developing countries.Setting Two World Health Organization sub-regions of the world: countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality (AfrE); and countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality (SearD).Design Cost effectiveness analysis of prevention and treatment strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, using mathematical modelling based on a lifetime population model. Data sourcesDemographic and epidemiological data were taken from the WHO mortality and global burden of disease databases. Estimates of intervention coverage, effectiveness, and resource needs were based on clinical trials, treatment guidelines, and expert opinion. Unit costs were taken from the WHO-CHOICE price database. Main outcome measures

Abstractobjective 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.

BackgroundTo support the development of global strategies against breast cancer, this study reviews available economic evidence on breast cancer control in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsA systematic article search was conducted through electronic scientific databases, and studies were included only if they concerned breast cancer, used original data, and originated from LMICs. Independent assessment of inclusion criteria yielded 24 studies that evaluated different kinds of screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions in various age and risk groups. Studies were synthesized and appraised through the use of a checklist, designed for evaluating economic analyses.ResultsThe majority of these studies were of poor quality, particularly in examining costs. Studies demonstrated the economic attractiveness of breast cancer screening strategies, and of novel treatment and diagnostic interventions.ConclusionsThis review shows that the evidence base to guide strategies for breast cancer control in LMICs is limited and of poor quality. The limited evidence base suggests that screening strategies may be economically attractive in LMICs – yet there is very little evidence to provide specific recommendations on screening by mammography versus clinical breast examination, the frequency of screening, or the target population. These results demonstrate the need for more economic analyses that are of better quality, cover a comprehensive set of interventions and result in clear policy recommendations.

International collaborations like the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) can help low and middle income countries (LMCs) to establish or improve breast cancer control programs by providing evidence-based, resource-stratified guidelines for the management and control of breast cancer. The Problem Solving Working Group of the BHGI 2010 Global Summit met to develop a consensus statement on problem-solving strategies addressing breast cancer in LMCs. To better assess breast cancer burden in poorly studied populations, countries require accurate statistics regarding breast cancer incidence and mortality. To better identify health care system strengths and weaknesses, countries require reasonable indicators of true health system quality and capacity. Using qualitative and quantitative research methods, countries should formulate cancer control strategies to identify both system inefficiencies and patient barriers. Patient navigation programs linked to public advocacy efforts feed and strengthen functional early detection and treatment programs. Cost-effectiveness research and implementation science are tools that can guide and expand successful pilot programs.

ObjectivesIn 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. MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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. ConclusionsOur 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.