Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography

Natasha K. Stout, Sandra J. Lee, Clyde B. Schechter, Karla Kerlikowske, Oguzhan Alagoz, Donald Berry, Diana S M Buist, Mucahit Cevik, Gary Chisholm, Harry J. De Koning, Hui Huang, Rebecca A. Hubbard, Diana L Miglioretti, Mark F. Munsell, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Nicolien T. Van Ravesteyn, Anna N A Tosteson, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Compared with film, digital mammography has superior sensitivity but lower specificity for women aged 40 to 49 years and women with dense breasts. Digital has replaced film in virtually all US facilities, but overall population health and cost from use of this technology are unclear. Methods Using five independent models, we compared digital screening strategies starting at age 40 or 50 years applied annually, biennially, or based on density with biennial film screening from ages 50 to 74 years and with no screening. Common data elements included cancer incidence and test performance, both modified by breast density. Lifetime outcomes included mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and screening and treatment costs. Results For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50 to 74 years, switching to digital from film yielded a median within-model improvement of 2 life-years, 0.27 additional deaths averted, 220 additional false-positive results, and $0.35 million more in costs. For an individual woman, this translates to a health gain of 0.73 days. Extending biennial digital screening to women ages 40 to 49 years was cost-effective, although results were sensitive to quality-of-life decrements related to screening and false positives. Targeting annual screening by density yielded similar outcomes to targeting by age. Annual screening approaches could increase costs to $5.26 million per 1000 women, in part because of higher numbers of screens and false positives, and were not efficient or cost-effective. Conclusions The transition to digital breast cancer screening in the United States increased total costs for small added health benefits. The value of digital mammography screening among women aged 40 to 49 years depends on women's preferences regarding false positives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume106
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 11 2014

Fingerprint

Mammography
Early Detection of Cancer
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Breast Neoplasms
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health Care Costs
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Insurance Benefits
Breast
Quality of Life
Technology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Mortality
Incidence
Health
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Stout, N. K., Lee, S. J., Schechter, C. B., Kerlikowske, K., Alagoz, O., Berry, D., ... Mandelblatt, J. S. (2014). Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 106(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju092

Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. / Stout, Natasha K.; Lee, Sandra J.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Kerlikowske, Karla; Alagoz, Oguzhan; Berry, Donald; Buist, Diana S M; Cevik, Mucahit; Chisholm, Gary; De Koning, Harry J.; Huang, Hui; Hubbard, Rebecca A.; Miglioretti, Diana L; Munsell, Mark F.; Trentham-Dietz, Amy; Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.; Tosteson, Anna N A; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.

In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 106, No. 6, 11.06.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stout, NK, Lee, SJ, Schechter, CB, Kerlikowske, K, Alagoz, O, Berry, D, Buist, DSM, Cevik, M, Chisholm, G, De Koning, HJ, Huang, H, Hubbard, RA, Miglioretti, DL, Munsell, MF, Trentham-Dietz, A, Van Ravesteyn, NT, Tosteson, ANA & Mandelblatt, JS 2014, 'Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography', Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 106, no. 6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju092
Stout, Natasha K. ; Lee, Sandra J. ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Alagoz, Oguzhan ; Berry, Donald ; Buist, Diana S M ; Cevik, Mucahit ; Chisholm, Gary ; De Koning, Harry J. ; Huang, Hui ; Hubbard, Rebecca A. ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Munsell, Mark F. ; Trentham-Dietz, Amy ; Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T. ; Tosteson, Anna N A ; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S. / Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2014 ; Vol. 106, No. 6.
@article{56d24ddf6f2e46aca694805fded6485c,
title = "Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography",
abstract = "Background Compared with film, digital mammography has superior sensitivity but lower specificity for women aged 40 to 49 years and women with dense breasts. Digital has replaced film in virtually all US facilities, but overall population health and cost from use of this technology are unclear. Methods Using five independent models, we compared digital screening strategies starting at age 40 or 50 years applied annually, biennially, or based on density with biennial film screening from ages 50 to 74 years and with no screening. Common data elements included cancer incidence and test performance, both modified by breast density. Lifetime outcomes included mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and screening and treatment costs. Results For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50 to 74 years, switching to digital from film yielded a median within-model improvement of 2 life-years, 0.27 additional deaths averted, 220 additional false-positive results, and $0.35 million more in costs. For an individual woman, this translates to a health gain of 0.73 days. Extending biennial digital screening to women ages 40 to 49 years was cost-effective, although results were sensitive to quality-of-life decrements related to screening and false positives. Targeting annual screening by density yielded similar outcomes to targeting by age. Annual screening approaches could increase costs to $5.26 million per 1000 women, in part because of higher numbers of screens and false positives, and were not efficient or cost-effective. Conclusions The transition to digital breast cancer screening in the United States increased total costs for small added health benefits. The value of digital mammography screening among women aged 40 to 49 years depends on women's preferences regarding false positives.",
author = "Stout, {Natasha K.} and Lee, {Sandra J.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and Karla Kerlikowske and Oguzhan Alagoz and Donald Berry and Buist, {Diana S M} and Mucahit Cevik and Gary Chisholm and {De Koning}, {Harry J.} and Hui Huang and Hubbard, {Rebecca A.} and Miglioretti, {Diana L} and Munsell, {Mark F.} and Amy Trentham-Dietz and {Van Ravesteyn}, {Nicolien T.} and Tosteson, {Anna N A} and Mandelblatt, {Jeanne S.}",
year = "2014",
month = "6",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1093/jnci/dju092",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "106",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography

AU - Stout, Natasha K.

AU - Lee, Sandra J.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Alagoz, Oguzhan

AU - Berry, Donald

AU - Buist, Diana S M

AU - Cevik, Mucahit

AU - Chisholm, Gary

AU - De Koning, Harry J.

AU - Huang, Hui

AU - Hubbard, Rebecca A.

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L

AU - Munsell, Mark F.

AU - Trentham-Dietz, Amy

AU - Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.

AU - Tosteson, Anna N A

AU - Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.

PY - 2014/6/11

Y1 - 2014/6/11

N2 - Background Compared with film, digital mammography has superior sensitivity but lower specificity for women aged 40 to 49 years and women with dense breasts. Digital has replaced film in virtually all US facilities, but overall population health and cost from use of this technology are unclear. Methods Using five independent models, we compared digital screening strategies starting at age 40 or 50 years applied annually, biennially, or based on density with biennial film screening from ages 50 to 74 years and with no screening. Common data elements included cancer incidence and test performance, both modified by breast density. Lifetime outcomes included mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and screening and treatment costs. Results For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50 to 74 years, switching to digital from film yielded a median within-model improvement of 2 life-years, 0.27 additional deaths averted, 220 additional false-positive results, and $0.35 million more in costs. For an individual woman, this translates to a health gain of 0.73 days. Extending biennial digital screening to women ages 40 to 49 years was cost-effective, although results were sensitive to quality-of-life decrements related to screening and false positives. Targeting annual screening by density yielded similar outcomes to targeting by age. Annual screening approaches could increase costs to $5.26 million per 1000 women, in part because of higher numbers of screens and false positives, and were not efficient or cost-effective. Conclusions The transition to digital breast cancer screening in the United States increased total costs for small added health benefits. The value of digital mammography screening among women aged 40 to 49 years depends on women's preferences regarding false positives.

AB - Background Compared with film, digital mammography has superior sensitivity but lower specificity for women aged 40 to 49 years and women with dense breasts. Digital has replaced film in virtually all US facilities, but overall population health and cost from use of this technology are unclear. Methods Using five independent models, we compared digital screening strategies starting at age 40 or 50 years applied annually, biennially, or based on density with biennial film screening from ages 50 to 74 years and with no screening. Common data elements included cancer incidence and test performance, both modified by breast density. Lifetime outcomes included mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and screening and treatment costs. Results For every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50 to 74 years, switching to digital from film yielded a median within-model improvement of 2 life-years, 0.27 additional deaths averted, 220 additional false-positive results, and $0.35 million more in costs. For an individual woman, this translates to a health gain of 0.73 days. Extending biennial digital screening to women ages 40 to 49 years was cost-effective, although results were sensitive to quality-of-life decrements related to screening and false positives. Targeting annual screening by density yielded similar outcomes to targeting by age. Annual screening approaches could increase costs to $5.26 million per 1000 women, in part because of higher numbers of screens and false positives, and were not efficient or cost-effective. Conclusions The transition to digital breast cancer screening in the United States increased total costs for small added health benefits. The value of digital mammography screening among women aged 40 to 49 years depends on women's preferences regarding false positives.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905190986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905190986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jnci/dju092

DO - 10.1093/jnci/dju092

M3 - Article

C2 - 24872543

AN - SCOPUS:84905190986

VL - 106

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 6

ER -