Literature DB >> 32749212

Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

Valérie D V Sankatsing1, Karolina Juraniec1, Sabine E Grimm1, Manuela A Joore1, Ruud M Pijnappel1, Harry J de Koning1, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn1.   

Abstract

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising screening test, but its outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain.PurposeTo determine if biennial DBT is cost-effective in a screening setting, when compared with digital mammography (DM) in the Netherlands, and to quantify the uncertainty.Materials and MethodsIn this study, performed from March 2018 to February 2019, the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis model was used to conduct a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), consisting of 10 000 model runs with 1 000 000 women simulated per run. The Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis package and the Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information tool were used to process PSA outcomes. Two simulated cohorts born in 1970 were invited to undergo biennial screening between ages 50 and 74 years-one cohort was assigned to DM screening, and one was assigned to DBT screening. DM input parameters were based on data from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. DBT parameters were based on literature and expert opinion. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €20 000 ($22 000) and €35 000 ($38 500) per life-year gained (LYG) were considered. Effects and costs were discounted at 3.5% per year.ResultsDBT resulted in a gain of 13 additional life-years per 1000 women invited to screening (7% increase, 13 of 193), followed over lifetime, compared with DM and led to 2% (four of 159) fewer false-positive results. DBT screening led to incremental discounted lifetime effects of 5.09 LYGs (95% confidence interval: -0.80, 9.70) and an increase in lifetime costs of €137 555 ($151 311) per 1000 women (95% confidence interval: €31 093 [$34 202], €263 537 [$289 891]) compared with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €27 023 ($29 725) per LYG. The probability of DBT being more cost-effective was 0.36 at €20 000 and 0.66 at €35 000 per LYG.ConclusionSwitching from digital mammography to biennial digital breast tomosynthesis is not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per life-year gained, but digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher probability of being more cost-effective than digital mammography at a threshold of €35 000 per life-year gained.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32749212      PMCID: PMC7526946          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020192505

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  34 in total

1.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time.

Authors:  D Bernardi; S Ciatto; M Pellegrini; V Anesi; S Burlon; E Cauli; M Depaoli; L Larentis; V Malesani; L Targa; P Baldo; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in The Netherlands.

Authors:  Valérie D V Sankatsing; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Paula A van Luijt; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jacques Fracheboud; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Two-Dimensional Images versus Full-Field Digital Mammography for Population Screening: Outcomes from the Verona Screening Program.

Authors:  Francesca Caumo; Manuel Zorzi; Silvia Brunelli; Giovanna Romanucci; Rossella Rella; Loredana Cugola; Paola Bricolo; Chiara Fedato; Stefania Montemezzi; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Tone Hovda; Åsne S Holen; Christoph I Lee; Judy Albertsen; Hilde Bjørndal; Siri H B Brandal; Randi Gullien; Jon Lømo; Daehoon Park; Linda Romundstad; Pål Suhrke; Einar Vigeland; Per Skaane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Interval breast cancers in the 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) population-based trial.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Daniela Bernardi; Francesca Caumo; Silvia Brunelli; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Giovanna Romanucci; Maria A Gentilini; Manuel Zorzi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 6.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  T M Svahn; N Houssami; I Sechopoulos; S Mattsson
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 4.380

7.  Long-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the United States.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; William E Barlow; Elizabeth S Burnside; Emily F Conant; John M Hampton; Hui Huang; Karla Kerlikowske; Sandra J Lee; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Martin J Yaffe; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Sepideh Saadatmand; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Emiel J T Rutgers; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Jan C Oosterwijk; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Maartje Hooning; Claudette E Loo; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Reporting Guidelines for the Use of Expert Judgement in Model-Based Economic Evaluations.

Authors:  Cynthia P Iglesias; Alexander Thompson; Wolf H Rogowski; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Anders Tingberg; Pontus Timberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  5 in total

1.  The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Christopher J Cadham; Marie Knoll; Luz María Sánchez-Romero; K Michael Cummings; Clifford E Douglas; Alex Liber; David Mendez; Rafael Meza; Ritesh Mistry; Aylin Sertkaya; Nargiz Travis; David T Levy
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 2.749

2.  The EU-TOPIA evaluation tool: An online modelling-based tool for informing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening decisions in Europe.

Authors:  Andrea Gini; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Erik E L Jansen; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Carlo Senore; Ahti Anttila; Dominika Novak Mlakar; Piret Veerus; Marcell Csanádi; Nadine Zielonke; Sirpa Heinävaara; György Széles; Nereo Segnan; Harry J de Koning; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-04-30

3.  Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost-effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies.

Authors:  Lindy M Kregting; Valérie D V Sankatsing; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 7.316

4.  Costs and Effects of Implementing Digital Tomosynthesis in a Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening Program: Predictions Using Results from the To-Be Trial in Norway.

Authors:  Tron Anders Moger; Åsne Holen; Berit Hanestad; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2022-07-07

Review 5.  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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.