Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts

Christoph I. Lee, Mucahit Cevik, Oguzhan Alagoz, Brian L. Sprague, Anna N A Tosteson, Diana L Miglioretti, Karla Kerlikowske, Natasha K. Stout, Jeffrey G. Jarvik, Scott D. Ramsey, Constance D. Lehman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of combined biennial digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening, compared with biennial digital mammography screening alone, among women with dense breasts. Materials and Methods: An established, discrete-event breast cancer simulation model was used to estimate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biennial screening with both digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone among U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts from a federal payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. Input values were estimated for test performance, costs, and health state utilities from the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, Medicare reimbursement rates, and medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the implications of varying key model parameters, including combined screening sensitivity and specificity, transient utility decrement of diagnostic work-up, and additional cost of tomosynthesis. Results: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893. An additional 0.5 deaths were averted and 405 false-positive findings avoided per 1000 women after 12 rounds of screening. Combined screening remained cost-effective (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained) over a wide range of incremental improvements in test performance. Overall, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the additional cost of tomosynthesis. Conclusion: Biennial combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts is likely to be cost-effective if priced appropriately (up to $226 for combined examinations vs $139 for digital mammography alone) and if reported interpretive performance metrics of improved specificity with tomosynthesis are met in routine practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)772-780
Number of pages9
JournalRadiology
Volume274
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2015

Fingerprint

Mammography
Breast
Costs and Cost Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Breast Neoplasms
Cost-Benefit Analysis
National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
Medicare
Health Care Costs
Sensitivity and Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. / Lee, Christoph I.; Cevik, Mucahit; Alagoz, Oguzhan; Sprague, Brian L.; Tosteson, Anna N A; Miglioretti, Diana L; Kerlikowske, Karla; Stout, Natasha K.; Jarvik, Jeffrey G.; Ramsey, Scott D.; Lehman, Constance D.

In: Radiology, Vol. 274, No. 3, 01.03.2015, p. 772-780.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lee, CI, Cevik, M, Alagoz, O, Sprague, BL, Tosteson, ANA, Miglioretti, DL, Kerlikowske, K, Stout, NK, Jarvik, JG, Ramsey, SD & Lehman, CD 2015, 'Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts', Radiology, vol. 274, no. 3, pp. 772-780. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14141237
Lee, Christoph I. ; Cevik, Mucahit ; Alagoz, Oguzhan ; Sprague, Brian L. ; Tosteson, Anna N A ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Stout, Natasha K. ; Jarvik, Jeffrey G. ; Ramsey, Scott D. ; Lehman, Constance D. / Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. In: Radiology. 2015 ; Vol. 274, No. 3. pp. 772-780.
@article{e0bc0b1cacb94b7fb0746777b958afb2,
title = "Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of combined biennial digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening, compared with biennial digital mammography screening alone, among women with dense breasts. Materials and Methods: An established, discrete-event breast cancer simulation model was used to estimate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biennial screening with both digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone among U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts from a federal payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. Input values were estimated for test performance, costs, and health state utilities from the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, Medicare reimbursement rates, and medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the implications of varying key model parameters, including combined screening sensitivity and specificity, transient utility decrement of diagnostic work-up, and additional cost of tomosynthesis. Results: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893. An additional 0.5 deaths were averted and 405 false-positive findings avoided per 1000 women after 12 rounds of screening. Combined screening remained cost-effective (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained) over a wide range of incremental improvements in test performance. Overall, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the additional cost of tomosynthesis. Conclusion: Biennial combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts is likely to be cost-effective if priced appropriately (up to $226 for combined examinations vs $139 for digital mammography alone) and if reported interpretive performance metrics of improved specificity with tomosynthesis are met in routine practice.",
author = "Lee, {Christoph I.} and Mucahit Cevik and Oguzhan Alagoz and Sprague, {Brian L.} and Tosteson, {Anna N A} and Miglioretti, {Diana L} and Karla Kerlikowske and Stout, {Natasha K.} and Jarvik, {Jeffrey G.} and Ramsey, {Scott D.} and Lehman, {Constance D.}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.14141237",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "274",
pages = "772--780",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts

AU - Lee, Christoph I.

AU - Cevik, Mucahit

AU - Alagoz, Oguzhan

AU - Sprague, Brian L.

AU - Tosteson, Anna N A

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Stout, Natasha K.

AU - Jarvik, Jeffrey G.

AU - Ramsey, Scott D.

AU - Lehman, Constance D.

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of combined biennial digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening, compared with biennial digital mammography screening alone, among women with dense breasts. Materials and Methods: An established, discrete-event breast cancer simulation model was used to estimate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biennial screening with both digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone among U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts from a federal payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. Input values were estimated for test performance, costs, and health state utilities from the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, Medicare reimbursement rates, and medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the implications of varying key model parameters, including combined screening sensitivity and specificity, transient utility decrement of diagnostic work-up, and additional cost of tomosynthesis. Results: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893. An additional 0.5 deaths were averted and 405 false-positive findings avoided per 1000 women after 12 rounds of screening. Combined screening remained cost-effective (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained) over a wide range of incremental improvements in test performance. Overall, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the additional cost of tomosynthesis. Conclusion: Biennial combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts is likely to be cost-effective if priced appropriately (up to $226 for combined examinations vs $139 for digital mammography alone) and if reported interpretive performance metrics of improved specificity with tomosynthesis are met in routine practice.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of combined biennial digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening, compared with biennial digital mammography screening alone, among women with dense breasts. Materials and Methods: An established, discrete-event breast cancer simulation model was used to estimate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biennial screening with both digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone among U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts from a federal payer perspective and a lifetime horizon. Input values were estimated for test performance, costs, and health state utilities from the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, Medicare reimbursement rates, and medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the implications of varying key model parameters, including combined screening sensitivity and specificity, transient utility decrement of diagnostic work-up, and additional cost of tomosynthesis. Results: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893. An additional 0.5 deaths were averted and 405 false-positive findings avoided per 1000 women after 12 rounds of screening. Combined screening remained cost-effective (less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained) over a wide range of incremental improvements in test performance. Overall, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the additional cost of tomosynthesis. Conclusion: Biennial combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for U.S. women aged 50-74 years with dense breasts is likely to be cost-effective if priced appropriately (up to $226 for combined examinations vs $139 for digital mammography alone) and if reported interpretive performance metrics of improved specificity with tomosynthesis are met in routine practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924301210&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924301210&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.14141237

DO - 10.1148/radiol.14141237

M3 - Article

C2 - 25350548

AN - SCOPUS:84924301210

VL - 274

SP - 772

EP - 780

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -