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
  • [31] Triple-Modality Screening Trial for Familial Breast Cancer Underlines the Importance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Questions the Role of Mammography and Ultrasound Regardless of Patient Mutation Status, Age, and Breast Density
    Riedl, Christopher C.
    Luft, Nikolaus
    Bernhart, Clemens
    Weber, Michael
    Bernathova, Maria
    Tea, Muy-Kheng M.
    Rudas, Margaretha
    Singer, Christian F.
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 33 (10) : 1128 - 1134
  • [32] Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
    Sanders, Gillian D.
    Neumann, Peter J.
    Basu, Anirban
    Brock, Dan W.
    Feeny, David
    Krahn, Murray
    Kuntz, Karen M.
    Meltzer, David O.
    Owens, Douglas K.
    Prosser, Lisa A.
    Salomon, Joshua A.
    Sculpher, Mark J.
    Trikalinos, Thomas A.
    Russell, Louise B.
    Siegel, Joanna E.
    Ganiats, Theodore G.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 316 (10): : 1093 - 1103
  • [33] Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey
    Sardanelli, Francesco
    Aase, Hildegunn S.
    Alvarez, Marina
    Azavedo, Edward
    Baarslag, Henk J.
    Balleyguier, Corinne
    Baltzer, Pascal A.
    Beslagic, Vanesa
    Bick, Ulrich
    Bogdanovic-Stojanovic, Dragana
    Briediene, Ruta
    Brkljacic, Boris
    Herrero, Julia Camps
    Colin, Catherine
    Cornford, Eleanor
    Danes, Jan
    de Geer, Gerard
    Esen, Gul
    Evans, Andrew
    Fuchsjaeger, Michael H.
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    Graf, Oswald
    Hargaden, Gormlaith
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Heywang-Koebrunner, Sylvia H.
    Ivanov, Valentin
    Jonsson, Asbjorn
    Kuhl, Christiane K.
    Lisencu, Eugenia C.
    Luczynska, Elzbieta
    Mann, Ritse M.
    Marques, Jose C.
    Martincich, Laura
    Mortier, Margarete
    Mueller-Schimpfle, Markus
    Ormandi, Katalin
    Panizza, Pietro
    Pediconi, Federica
    Pijnappel, Ruud M.
    Pinker, Katja
    Rissanen, Tarja
    Rotaru, Natalia
    Saguatti, Gianni
    Sella, Tamar
    Slobodnikova, Jana
    Talk, Maret
    Taourel, Patrice
    Trimboli, Rubina M.
    Vejborg, Ilse
    Vourtsis, Athina
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2017, 27 (07) : 2737 - 2743
  • [34] Multicenter Surveillance of Women at High Genetic Breast Cancer Risk Using Mammography, Ultrasonography, and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (the High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 Study) Final Results
    Sardanelli, Francesco
    Podo, Franca
    Santoro, Filippo
    Manoukian, Siranoush
    Bergonzi, Silvana
    Trecate, Giovanna
    Vergnaghi, Daniele
    Federico, Massimo
    Cortesi, Laura
    Corcione, Stefano
    Morassut, Sandro
    Di Maggio, Cosimo
    Cilotti, Anna
    Martincich, Laura
    Calabrese, Massimo
    Zuiani, Chiara
    Preda, Lorenzo
    Bonanni, Bernardo
    Carbonaro, Luca A.
    Contegiacomo, Alma
    Panizza, Pietro
    Di Cesare, Ernesto
    Savarese, Antonella
    Crecco, Marcello
    Turchetti, Daniela
    Tonutti, Maura
    Belli, Paolo
    Del Maschio, Alessandro
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2011, 46 (02) : 94 - 105
  • [35] Prevalence of Mammographically Dense Breasts in the United States
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Gangnon, Ronald E.
    Burt, Veronica
    Trentham-Dietz, Amy
    Hampton, John M.
    Wellman, Robert D.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2014, 106 (10):
  • [36] Systematic development of an abbreviated protocol for screening breast magnetic resonance imaging
    Strahle, David A.
    Pathak, Dorothy R.
    Sierra, Arlene
    Saha, Sukamal
    Strahle, Catherine
    Devisetty, Kiran
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 162 (02) : 283 - 295
  • [37] PREDICT: a new UK prognostic model that predicts survival following surgery for invasive breast cancer
    Wishart, Gordon C.
    Azzato, Elizabeth M.
    Greenberg, David C.
    Rashbass, Jem
    Kearins, Olive
    Lawrence, Gill
    Caldas, Carlos
    Pharoah, Paul D. P.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2010, 12 (01)
  • [38] County-Level Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Initial Estimates and the Need for Further Research
    Woods, Beth
    Revill, Paul
    Sculpher, Mark
    Claxton, Karl
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (08) : 929 - 935
  • [39] Comparison of detectability of breast cancer by abbreviated breast MRI based on diffusion-weighted images and postcontrast MRI
    Yamada, Takayuki
    Kanemaki, Yoshihide
    Okamoto, Satoko
    Nakajima, Yasuo
    [J]. JAPANESE JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 36 (05) : 331 - 339