Fabian Tollens1, Pascal A T Baltzer2, Matthias Dietzel3, Moritz L Schnitzer4, Vincent Schwarze4, Wolfgang G Kunz4, Johann Rink1, Johannes Rübenthaler4, Matthias F Froelich1, Stefan O Schönberg1, Clemens G Kaiser5. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, D-68167, Mannheim, Germany. 2. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 1, D-91054, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, D-68167, Mannheim, Germany. clemens.kaiser@umm.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) was introduced to reduce both examination and image reading times and to improve cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. The aim of this model-based economic study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of full protocol breast MRI (FB-MRI) vs. AB-MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis and a Markov model were designed to model the cumulative costs and effects of biennial screening in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from a US healthcare system perspective. Model input parameters for a cohort of women with dense breast tissue were adopted from recent literature. The impact of varying AB-MRI costs per examination as well as specificity on the resulting cost-effectiveness was modeled within deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: At an assumed cost per examination of $ 263 for AB-MRI (84% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination), the discounted cumulative costs of both MR-based strategies accounted comparably. Reducing the costs of AB-MRI below $ 259 (82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination, respectively), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FB-MRI exceeded the willingness to pay threshold and the AB-MRI-strategy should be considered preferable in terms of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings indicate that AB-MRI may be considered cost-effective compared to FB-MRI for screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer, as long as the costs per examination do not exceed 82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination. KEY POINTS: • Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI is affected by reductions in specificity and resulting false positive findings and increased recall rates. • Abbreviated breast MRI may be cost-effective up to a cost per examination of 82% of the cost of a full protocol examination. • Abbreviated breast MRI could be an economically preferable alternative to full protocol breast MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue.
OBJECTIVES: Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) was introduced to reduce both examination and image reading times and to improve cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. The aim of this model-based economic study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of full protocol breast MRI (FB-MRI) vs. AB-MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis and a Markov model were designed to model the cumulative costs and effects of biennial screening in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from a US healthcare system perspective. Model input parameters for a cohort of women with dense breast tissue were adopted from recent literature. The impact of varying AB-MRI costs per examination as well as specificity on the resulting cost-effectiveness was modeled within deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: At an assumed cost per examination of $ 263 for AB-MRI (84% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination), the discounted cumulative costs of both MR-based strategies accounted comparably. Reducing the costs of AB-MRI below $ 259 (82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination, respectively), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FB-MRI exceeded the willingness to pay threshold and the AB-MRI-strategy should be considered preferable in terms of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings indicate that AB-MRI may be considered cost-effective compared to FB-MRI for screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer, as long as the costs per examination do not exceed 82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination. KEY POINTS: • Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI is affected by reductions in specificity and resulting false positive findings and increased recall rates. • Abbreviated breast MRI may be cost-effective up to a cost per examination of 82% of the cost of a full protocol examination. • Abbreviated breast MRI could be an economically preferable alternative to full protocol breast MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue.
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marije F Bakker; Stéphanie V de Lange; Ruud M Pijnappel; Ritse M Mann; Petra H M Peeters; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Marleen J Emaus; Claudette E Loo; Robertus H C Bisschops; Marc B I Lobbes; Matthijn D F de Jong; Katya M Duvivier; Jeroen Veltman; Nico Karssemeijer; Harry J de Koning; Paul J van Diest; Willem P T M Mali; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Wouter B Veldhuis; Carla H van Gils Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ritse M Mann; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Ulrich Bick; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Andrew Evans; Eva Fallenberg; Gabor Forrai; Michael H Fuchsjäger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Julia Camps-Herrero; Christiane K Kuhl; Laura Martincich; Federica Pediconi; Pietro Panizza; Luis J Pina; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Per Skaane; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David A Strahle; Dorothy R Pathak; Arlene Sierra; Sukamal Saha; Catherine Strahle; Kiran Devisetty Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Christopher E Comstock; Constantine Gatsonis; Gillian M Newstead; Bradley S Snyder; Ilana F Gareen; Jennifer T Bergin; Habib Rahbar; Janice S Sung; Christina Jacobs; Jennifer A Harvey; Mary H Nicholson; Robert C Ward; Jacqueline Holt; Andrew Prather; Kathy D Miller; Mitchell D Schnall; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 157.335