Matthias F Froelich1, Clemens G Kaiser2. 1. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim - University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. 2. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim - University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. clemens.kaiser@umm.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic implications of our previous study on the use of MR-mammography (MRM) as a solitary imaging tool in women at intermediate risk due to dense breasts. BACKGROUND: In our previous study, we found MRM to be a specific diagnostic tool with high accuracy in patients with dense breasts representing a patient collective at intermediate risk of breast cancer. For this study, we examined whether MRM is an economical alternative. METHODS: For the determination of outcomes and costs, a decision model based on potential diagnostic results of MRM was developed. Quality of life was estimated in a Markov chain model distinguishing between the absence of malignancy, the presence of malignancy, and death. Input parameters were utilized from the prospective TK-Study. To investigate the economic impact of MRM, overall costs in € and outcomes of MRM in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: MRM was associated with expected costs of 1650.48 € in the 5-year period and an expected cumulative outcome of 4.69 QALYs. A true positive diagnosis resulted in significantly lower costs and a higher quality of life when compared to the consequences of a false negative result. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, treatment costs had more impact on overall costs than the costs of MRM. The total costs per patient remained below 2500 € in the 5-year period. CONCLUSION: MRM, as a solitary imaging tool in patients at intermediate risk due to dense breasts, is economically feasible. KEY POINTS: • In patients with dense breasts (i.e., patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer), the relative cost of MR-mammography examinations only had moderate impact on overall costs. • This is due to cost-savings through the application of a sensitive imaging technique resulting in an optimized staging and therapy planning. • MR-mammography, unaccompanied by mammography or ultrasound in patients with dense breasts, was economically feasible in our analysis.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic implications of our previous study on the use of MR-mammography (MRM) as a solitary imaging tool in women at intermediate risk due to dense breasts. BACKGROUND: In our previous study, we found MRM to be a specific diagnostic tool with high accuracy in patients with dense breasts representing a patient collective at intermediate risk of breast cancer. For this study, we examined whether MRM is an economical alternative. METHODS: For the determination of outcomes and costs, a decision model based on potential diagnostic results of MRM was developed. Quality of life was estimated in a Markov chain model distinguishing between the absence of malignancy, the presence of malignancy, and death. Input parameters were utilized from the prospective TK-Study. To investigate the economic impact of MRM, overall costs in € and outcomes of MRM in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: MRM was associated with expected costs of 1650.48 € in the 5-year period and an expected cumulative outcome of 4.69 QALYs. A true positive diagnosis resulted in significantly lower costs and a higher quality of life when compared to the consequences of a false negative result. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, treatment costs had more impact on overall costs than the costs of MRM. The total costs per patient remained below 2500 € in the 5-year period. CONCLUSION: MRM, as a solitary imaging tool in patients at intermediate risk due to dense breasts, is economically feasible. KEY POINTS: • In patients with dense breasts (i.e., patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer), the relative cost of MR-mammography examinations only had moderate impact on overall costs. • This is due to cost-savings through the application of a sensitive imaging technique resulting in an optimized staging and therapy planning. • MR-mammography, unaccompanied by mammography or ultrasound in patients with dense breasts, was economically feasible in our analysis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Cost-benefit analysis; Costs and cost analysis; Economics; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Sepideh Saadatmand; H Amarens Geuzinge; Emiel J T Rutgers; Ritse M Mann; Diderick B W de Roy van Zuidewijn; Harmien M Zonderland; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Marc B I Lobbes; Margreet G E M Ausems; Martijne van 't Riet; Maartje J Hooning; Ingeborg Mares-Engelberts; Ernest J T Luiten; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Cees Verhoef; Nico Karssemeijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Harry J de Koning; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; David Thickman; David A Bluemke; Etta Pisano; Christiane Kuhl; Thomas B Julian; Nola Hylton; Paul Weatherall; Michael O'loughlin; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Kevin Strobel; Simone Schrading; Nienke L Hansen; Alexandra Barabasch; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Clemens G Kaiser; C Reich; M Dietzel; P A T Baltzer; J Krammer; K Wasser; S O Schoenberg; W A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-01-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Debra L Monticciolo; Mary S Newell; Linda Moy; Bethany Niell; Barbara Monsees; Edward A Sickles Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicole Mittmann; Natasha K Stout; Pablo Lee; Anna N A Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Martin J Yaffe Journal: Health Rep Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.796
Authors: H Amarens Geuzinge; Marije F Bakker; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Wouter B Veldhuis; Ruud M Pijnappel; Stéphanie V de Lange; Marleen J Emaus; Ritse M Mann; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Petra K de Koekkoek-Doll; Carla H van Gils; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 13.506