Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs. Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening Women with Intermediate Risk of Breast Cancer-How Low-Cost Must MRI Be?

被引:17
作者
Tollens, Fabian [1 ]
Baltzer, Pascal A. T. [2 ]
Dietzel, Matthias [3 ]
Rubenthaler, Johannes [4 ]
Froelich, Matthias F. [1 ]
Kaiser, Clemens G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Heidelberg Univ, Univ Med Ctr Mannheim, Med Fac Mannheim, Dept Radiol & Nucl Med, Theodor Kutzer Ufer 1-3, D-68167 Mannheim, Germany
[2] Med Univ Vienna, Vienna Gen Hosp, Dept Biomed Imaging & Image Guided Therapy, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
[3] Friedrich Alexander Univ Hosp Erlangen, Dept Radiol, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
[4] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Dept Radiol, D-80331 Munich, Germany
关键词
tomosynthesis; AB-MRI; MR-Mammography; breast cancer; intermediate-risk screening; cost-effectiveness analyses; cost-effectiveness threshold;
D O I
10.3390/cancers13061241
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Simple Summary Women with dense breasts have an increased risk of breast cancer and a smaller likelihood of detection in conventional mammographic screening. It is an ongoing challenge of breast imaging techniques to increase sensitivity in dense breasts. Tomosynthesis, as well as abbreviated breast MR, intends to close the gap between optimal cancer detection rate and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this economic evaluation was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of these two imaging techniques in screening women of intermediate risk of breast cancer due to dense breasts. The model-based analysis revealed that abbreviated breast MRI can be considered cost-effective, being below the willingness to pay-threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Background: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) offer superior diagnostic performance compared to conventional mammography in screening women with intermediate risk of breast cancer due to dense breast tissue. The aim of this model-based economic evaluation was to analyze whether AB-MRI is cost-effective in this cohort compared to DBT. Methods: Decision analysis and Markov simulations were used to model the cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a time horizon of 30 years. Model input parameters were adopted from recent literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to test the stability of the model. Results: In the base-case scenario, the costs of an AB-MRI examination were defined to equal the costs of a full protocol acquisition. Two-yearly screening of women with dense breasts resulted in cumulative discounted costs of $8798 and $9505 for DBT and AB-MRI, and cumulative discounted effects of 19.23 and 19.27 QALYs, respectively, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $20,807 per QALY gained in the base-case scenario. By reducing the cost of an AB-MRI examination below a threshold of $241 in sensitivity analyses, AB-MRI would become cost-saving compared to DBT. Conclusion: In comparison to DBT, AB-MRI can be considered cost-effective up to a price per examination of $593 in screening patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 14
页数:14
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for integrating MRI into breast cancer screening for women at high risk
    Ahern, C. H.
    Shih, Y-C T.
    Dong, W.
    Parmigiani, G.
    Shen, Y.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2014, 111 (08) : 1542 - 1551
  • [2] Arias Elizabeth, 2019, Natl Vital Stat Rep, V68, P1
  • [3] Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue
    Bakker, Marije F.
    de Lange, Stephanie V.
    Pijnappel, Ruud M.
    Mann, Ritse M.
    Peeters, Petra H. M.
    Monninkhof, Evelyn M.
    Emaus, Marleen J.
    Loo, Claudette E.
    Bisschops, Robertus H. C.
    Lobbes, Marc B. I.
    de Jong, Matthijn D. F.
    Duvivier, Katya M.
    Veltman, Jeroen
    Karssemeijer, Nico
    de Koning, Harry J.
    van Diest, Paul J.
    Mali, Willem P. T. M.
    van den Bosch, Maurice A. A. J.
    Veldhuis, Wouter B.
    van Gils, Carla H.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2019, 381 (22) : 2091 - 2102
  • [4] Diagnostic Performance of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Non-Calcified Equivocal Breast Findings: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Bennani-Baiti, Barbara
    Bennani-Baiti, Nabila
    Baltzer, Pascal A.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (08):
  • [5] Blumen H, 2016, AM HEALTH DRUG BENEF, V9, P23
  • [6] Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer
    Boyd, Norman F.
    Guo, Helen
    Martin, Lisa J.
    Sun, Limei
    Stone, Jennifer
    Fishell, Eve
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Hislop, Greg
    Chiarelli, Anna
    Minkin, Salomon
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) : 227 - 236
  • [7] Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast quality-of-life instrument
    Brady, MJ
    Cella, DF
    Mo, F
    Bonomi, AE
    Tulsky, DS
    Lloyd, SR
    Deasy, S
    Cobleigh, M
    Shiomoto, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1997, 15 (03) : 974 - 986
  • [8] On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review
    Cameron, David
    Ubels, Jasper
    Norstrom, Fredrik
    [J]. GLOBAL HEALTH ACTION, 2018, 11 (01):
  • [9] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice
    Chong, Alice
    Weinstein, Susan P.
    McDonald, Elizabeth S.
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2019, 292 (01) : 1 - 14
  • [10] Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening
    Comstock, Christopher E.
    Gatsonis, Constantine
    Newstead, Gillian M.
    Snyder, Bradley S.
    Gareen, Ilana F.
    Bergin, Jennifer T.
    Rahbar, Habib
    Sung, Janice S.
    Jacobs, Christina
    Harvey, Jennifer A.
    Nicholson, Mary H.
    Ward, Robert C.
    Holt, Jacqueline
    Prather, Andrew
    Miller, Kathy D.
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Kuhl, Christiane K.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2020, 323 (08): : 746 - 756