Adding automated breast ultrasound to mammography in women with increased breast density or at an elevated risk of breast cancer is a cost-effective screening strategy.
{"title":"Adding automated breast ultrasound to mammography in women with increased breast density or at an elevated risk of breast cancer is a cost-effective screening strategy.","authors":"Ian Grady, Sean Grady, Nailya Chanisheva","doi":"10.1007/s10552-024-01958-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Automated breast ultrasound imaging (ABUS) results in a reduction in breast cancer stage at diagnosis beyond that seen with mammographic screening in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of breast cancer. It is unknown if the addition of ABUS to mammography or ABUS imaging alone, in this population, is a cost-effective screening strategy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A discrete event simulation (Monte Carlo) model was developed to assess the costs of screening, diagnostic evaluation, biopsy, and breast cancer treatment. The number of quality-adjusted life years gained through each screening method is assessed using previously published quality of life measures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for screening with the combination of mammographic and ABUS imaging, and for ABUS imaging alone are calculated as compared to standard mammographic imaging.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Combined screening with both mammographic and ABUS imaging results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,071 ($6,332-$7,809) when compared to traditional mammographic imaging (p < 0.05). ABUS screening alone results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,559 ($- 965-$8,082) when compared to mammographic imaging (p < 0.05). ABUS screening alone is more likely to be cost-effective for a willingness-to-pay of less than $7,100.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The addition of ABUS to mammographic imaging is a cost-effective screening strategy in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of developing breast cancer. ABUS imaging alone is also a cost-effective strategy in this population, particularly in resource-poor areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":9432,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Causes & Control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Causes & Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-024-01958-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Automated breast ultrasound imaging (ABUS) results in a reduction in breast cancer stage at diagnosis beyond that seen with mammographic screening in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of breast cancer. It is unknown if the addition of ABUS to mammography or ABUS imaging alone, in this population, is a cost-effective screening strategy.
Methods: A discrete event simulation (Monte Carlo) model was developed to assess the costs of screening, diagnostic evaluation, biopsy, and breast cancer treatment. The number of quality-adjusted life years gained through each screening method is assessed using previously published quality of life measures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for screening with the combination of mammographic and ABUS imaging, and for ABUS imaging alone are calculated as compared to standard mammographic imaging.
Results: Combined screening with both mammographic and ABUS imaging results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,071 ($6,332-$7,809) when compared to traditional mammographic imaging (p < 0.05). ABUS screening alone results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,559 ($- 965-$8,082) when compared to mammographic imaging (p < 0.05). ABUS screening alone is more likely to be cost-effective for a willingness-to-pay of less than $7,100.
Conclusions: The addition of ABUS to mammographic imaging is a cost-effective screening strategy in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of developing breast cancer. ABUS imaging alone is also a cost-effective strategy in this population, particularly in resource-poor areas.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Causes & Control is an international refereed journal that both reports and stimulates new avenues of investigation into the causes, control, and subsequent prevention of cancer. By drawing together related information published currently in a diverse range of biological and medical journals, it has a multidisciplinary and multinational approach.
The scope of the journal includes: variation in cancer distribution within and between populations; factors associated with cancer risk; preventive and therapeutic interventions on a population scale; economic, demographic, and health-policy implications of cancer; and related methodological issues.
The emphasis is on speed of publication. The journal will normally publish within 30 to 60 days of acceptance of manuscripts.
Cancer Causes & Control publishes Original Articles, Reviews, Commentaries, Opinions, Short Communications and Letters to the Editor which will have direct relevance to researchers and practitioners working in epidemiology, medical statistics, cancer biology, health education, medical economics and related fields. The journal also contains significant information for government agencies concerned with cancer research, control and policy.