PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with and without adjunctive x-ray mammography (XM), compared with XM alone in high-risk women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model was developed to depict the consequences of screening with MRI and/or XM for cohorts of 10,000 women with BRCA1/2 mutations and women with other high-risk characteristics, respectively. The model predicted the number of women correctly and incorrectly diagnosed with each strategy and lifetime consequences in terms of additional care, patient utilities, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost effectiveness was calculated in terms of cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Among the 400 women (of 10,000) with BRCA1/2 mutations and undiagnosed breast cancer, 361 cases would be detected with MRI and XM, 290 with MRI, and 160 with XM. False-positive results would total 1,526, 1,190, and 528, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with MRI and XM compared with XM alone for women with BRCA1/2 mutations was $25,277. Among other high-risk women, cost per QALY gained with MRI and XM compared with XM alone varied depending on the prevalence of breast cancer, ranging from $45,566 (300 cases) to $310,616 (50 cases). The cost effectiveness of MRI alone compared with XM alone was similar. CONCLUSION: Screening with MRI, alone or in combination with XM, in women with BRCA1/2 mutations is cost effective by current standards compared with XM alone. In women with other high-risk characteristics, MRI screening may also be cost effective, depending on the expected prevalence of undiagnosed breast cancer at the time of screening.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with and without adjunctive x-ray mammography (XM), compared with XM alone in high-risk women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model was developed to depict the consequences of screening with MRI and/or XM for cohorts of 10,000 women with BRCA1/2 mutations and women with other high-risk characteristics, respectively. The model predicted the number of women correctly and incorrectly diagnosed with each strategy and lifetime consequences in terms of additional care, patient utilities, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost effectiveness was calculated in terms of cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Among the 400 women (of 10,000) with BRCA1/2 mutations and undiagnosed breast cancer, 361 cases would be detected with MRI and XM, 290 with MRI, and 160 with XM. False-positive results would total 1,526, 1,190, and 528, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with MRI and XM compared with XM alone for women with BRCA1/2 mutations was $25,277. Among other high-risk women, cost per QALY gained with MRI and XM compared with XM alone varied depending on the prevalence of breast cancer, ranging from $45,566 (300 cases) to $310,616 (50 cases). The cost effectiveness of MRI alone compared with XM alone was similar. CONCLUSION: Screening with MRI, alone or in combination with XM, in women with BRCA1/2 mutations is cost effective by current standards compared with XM alone. In women with other high-risk characteristics, MRI screening may also be cost effective, depending on the expected prevalence of undiagnosed breast cancer at the time of screening.
Authors: Tara O Henderson; Alison Amsterdam; Smita Bhatia; Melissa M Hudson; Anna T Meadows; Joseph P Neglia; Lisa R Diller; Louis S Constine; Robert A Smith; Martin C Mahoney; Elizabeth A Morris; Leslie L Montgomery; Wendy Landier; Stephanie M Smith; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Shelby D Reed; Charles D Scales; Suzanne B Stewart; Jielin Sun; Judd W Moul; Kevin A Schulman; Jianfeng Xu Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Roja Rohani; Rene Figueredo; Yves Bureau; James Koropatnick; Paula Foster; R Terry Thompson; Frank S Prato; Donna E Goldhawk Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Robert Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Louise M Henderson; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Renée L Mulder; Leontien C M Kremer; Melissa M Hudson; Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Gill Levitt; Louis S Constine; W Hamish Wallace; Flora E van Leeuwen; Cécile M Ronckers; Tara O Henderson; Mary Dwyer; Roderick Skinner; Kevin C Oeffinger Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Elena B Elkin; Deborah A Marshall; Nathalie A Kulin; Ilia L Ferrusi; Michael J Hassett; Uri Ladabaum; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 8.822