Literature DB >> 30632645

Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis.

Victoria L Mango1, Akshay Goel2, Eralda Mema2, Ellie Kwak3, Richard Ha2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening high-risk women for breast cancer with MRI is cost-effective, with increasing cost-effectiveness paralleling increasing risk. However, for average-risk women cost is considered a major limitation to mass screening with MRI.
PURPOSE: To perform a cost-benefit analysis of a simulated breast cancer screening program for average-risk women comparing MRI with mammography. STUDY TYPE: Population simulation study. POPULATION/
SUBJECTS: Five million (M) hypothetical women undergoing breast cancer screening. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Simulation based primarily on Kuhl et al8 study utilizing 1.5T MRI with an axial bilateral 2D multisection gradient-echo dynamic series (repetition time / echo time 250/4.6 msec; flip angle, 90°) with a full 512 × 512 acquisition matrix and a sensitivity encoding factor of two, performed prior to and four times after bolus injection of 0.1 mmol of gadobutrol per kg of body weight (Gadovist; Bayer, Germany). An axial T2 -weighted fast spin-echo sequence with identical anatomic parameters was also included. ASSESSMENT: A Monte Carlo simulation utilizing Medicare reimbursement rates to calculate input variable costs was developed to compare 5M women undergoing breast cancer screening with either triennial MRI or annual mammography, 2.5M in each group, over 30 years. STATISTICAL TESTS: Expected recall rates, BI-RADS 3, BI-RADS 4/5 cases and cancer detection rates were determined from published literature with calculated aggregate costs including resultant diagnostic/follow-up imaging and biopsies.
RESULTS: Baseline screening of 2.5M women with breast MRI cost $1.6 billion (B), 3× higher than baseline mammography screening ($0.54B). With subsequent screening, MRI screening is more cost-effective than mammography screening in 24 years ($13.02B vs. $13.03B). MRI screening program costs are largely driven by cost per MRI exam ($549.71). A second simulation model was performed based on MRI Medicare reimbursement trends using a lower MRI cost ($400). This yielded a cost-effective benefit compared to mammography screening in less than 6 years ($3.41B vs. $3.65B), with over a 22% cost reduction relative to mammography screening in 12 years and reaching a 38% reduction in 30 years. DATA
CONCLUSION: Despite higher initial cost of a breast MRI screening program for average-risk women, there is ultimately a cost savings over time compared with mammography. This estimate is conservative given cost-benefit of additional/earlier breast cancers detected by breast MRI were not accounted for. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.
© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast MRI; cancer screening; informatics

Year:  2019        PMID: 30632645     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26334

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  10 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of prostate cancer: promise and caution.

Authors:  Douglas C Cheung; Antonio Finelli
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Outcomes of Abbreviated MRI (Ab-MRI) for Women of any Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Density in a Community Academic Setting.

Authors:  Kaitlyn Kennard; Olivia Wang; Stephanie Kjelstrom; Sharon Larson; Lina M Sizer; Catherine Carruthers; William B Carter; Robin Ciocca; Jennifer Sabol; Thomas G Frazier; Ned Z Carp
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.339

3.  ASO Author Reflection: Outcomes of Abbreviated MRI for Women of Any Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Density.

Authors:  Kaitlyn Kennard; Olivia Wang; Robin Ciocca; Jennifer Sabol; Thomas G Frazier; Ned Z Carp
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 4.339

Review 4.  The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.109

5.  Overcoming Barriers in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Management: From Overtreatment to Optimal Treatment.

Authors:  Jean L Wright; Habib Rahbar; Samilia Obeng-Gyasi; Ruth Carlos; Judy Tjoe; Antonio C Wolff
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 50.717

Review 6.  Breast MRI during pregnancy and lactation: clinical challenges and technical advances.

Authors:  Noam Nissan; Ethan Bauer; Efi Efraim Moss Massasa; Miri Sklair-Levy
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-04-09

7.  Downstream Mammary and Extramammary Cascade Services and Spending Following Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Mammography Among Commercially Insured Women.

Authors:  Ishani Ganguli; Nancy L Keating; Nitya Thakore; Joyce Lii; Sughra Raza; Lydia E Pace
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-04-01

8.  A comprehensive comparison of circulating tumor cells and breast imaging modalities as screening tools for breast cancer in Chinese women.

Authors:  Xuan Shao; Xiaoyan Jin; Zhigang Chen; Zhigang Zhang; Wuzhen Chen; Jingxin Jiang; Zhen Wang; Ying Cui; Wan-Hung Fan; Ke Wang; Xiuyan Yu; Jian Huang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 5.738

9.  Breast cancer detection by analyzing the volatile organic compound (VOC) signature in human urine.

Authors:  Judit Giró Benet; Minjun Seo; Michelle Khine; Josep Gumà Padró; Antonio Pardo Martnez; Fadi Kurdahi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 10.  A Primer to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Joseph Waller; Kyle DeStefano; John Dempsey; Joshua Leckron; Amy Tucker; Muhammad Umair
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-08-24
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.