Christoph I Lee1, Mucahit Cevik, Oguzhan Alagoz, Brian L Sprague, Anna N A Tosteson, Diana L Miglioretti, Karla Kerlikowske, Natasha K Stout, Jeffrey G Jarvik, Scott D Ramsey, Constance D Lehman. 1. From the Depts of Radiology (C.I.L., J.G.J., C.D.L.), Health Services (C.I.L., J.G.J., S.D.R.), and Medicine (S.D.R.), Univ of Washington, 825 Eastlake Ave E, G3-200, Seattle, WA 98109-1023; Hutchinson Inst for Cancer Outcomes Research, Public Health Sciences Div, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Ctr, Seattle, Wash (C.I.L., S.D.R., C.D.L.); Dept of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Univ of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis (M.C., O.A.); Dept of Surgery and Office of Health Promotion Research, Univ of Vermont, Burlington, Vt (B.L.S.); Dept of Community & Family Medicine, Dartmouth Inst for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, and Norris Cotton Cancer Ctr, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth Univ, Dartmouth, NH (A.N.A.T.); Dept of Public Health Sciences, Univ of California-Davis, Davis, Calif (D.L.M.); Group Health Research Inst, Seattle, Wash (D.L.M.); Dept of Medicine and Dept of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, General Internal Medicine Section, Dept of Veterans Affairs, Univ of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (K.K.); and Dept of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inst, Boston, Mass (N.K.S.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of combined biennial digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening, compared with biennial digital mammography screening alone, among women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An established, discrete-event breast cancer simulation model was used to estimate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biennial screening with both digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone among U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts from a federal payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. Input values were estimated for test performance, costs, and health state utilities from the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, Medicare reimbursement rates, and medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the implications of varying key model parameters, including combined screening sensitivity and specificity, transient utility decrement of diagnostic work-up, and additional cost of tomosynthesis. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893. An additional 0.5 deaths were averted and 405 false-positive findings avoided per 1000 women after 12 rounds of screening. Combined screening remained cost-effective (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained) over a wide range of incremental improvements in test performance. Overall, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the additional cost of tomosynthesis. CONCLUSION: Biennial combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts is likely to be cost-effective if priced appropriately (up to $226 for combined examinations vs $139 for digital mammography alone) and if reported interpretive performance metrics of improved specificity with tomosynthesis are met in routine practice.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of combined biennial digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening, compared with biennial digital mammography screening alone, among women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An established, discrete-event breast cancer simulation model was used to estimate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biennial screening with both digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone among U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts from a federal payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. Input values were estimated for test performance, costs, and health state utilities from the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, Medicare reimbursement rates, and medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the implications of varying key model parameters, including combined screening sensitivity and specificity, transient utility decrement of diagnostic work-up, and additional cost of tomosynthesis. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893. An additional 0.5 deaths were averted and 405 false-positive findings avoided per 1000 women after 12 rounds of screening. Combined screening remained cost-effective (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained) over a wide range of incremental improvements in test performance. Overall, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the additional cost of tomosynthesis. CONCLUSION: Biennial combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts is likely to be cost-effective if priced appropriately (up to $226 for combined examinations vs $139 for digital mammography alone) and if reported interpretive performance metrics of improved specificity with tomosynthesis are met in routine practice.
Authors: Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sylvia K Plevritis; Allison W Kurian; Bronislava M Sigal; Bruce L Daniel; Debra M Ikeda; Frank E Stockdale; Alan M Garber Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-05-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J C de Haes; H J de Koning; G J van Oortmarssen; H M van Agt; A E de Bruyn; P J van Der Maas Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1991-10-21 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kathleen A Cronin; Binbing Yu; Martin Krapcho; Diana L Miglioretti; Michael P Fay; Grant Izmirlian; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Eric J Feuer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Susan P Weinstein; Mitchell D Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Oguzhan Alagoz; Natasha K Stout; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kim Dittus; Ted A James; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Elizabeth S Burnside; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stella K Kang; Christoph I Lee; Pari V Pandharipande; Pina C Sanelli; Michael P Recht Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Oguzhan Alagoz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Mucahit Cevik; Brian L Sprague; Dennis G Fryback; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.583