乳腺癌筛查中数字乳腺断层成像和乳腺 X 线照相术的成本效益分析:马尔可夫模型研究

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-15 DOI:10.1007/s44197-024-00239-z
Wei-Shiuan Chung, Thomas T H Wan, Yu Tsz Shiu, Hon-Yi Shi
{"title":"乳腺癌筛查中数字乳腺断层成像和乳腺 X 线照相术的成本效益分析:马尔可夫模型研究","authors":"Wei-Shiuan Chung, Thomas T H Wan, Yu Tsz Shiu, Hon-Yi Shi","doi":"10.1007/s44197-024-00239-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mammography (MG) has demonstrated its effectiveness in diminishing mortality and advanced-stage breast cancer incidences in breast screening initiatives. Notably, research has accentuated the superior diagnostic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). However, the scope of evidence validating the cost-effectiveness of DBT remains limited, prompting a requisite for more comprehensive investigation. The present study aimed to rigorously evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DBT plus MG (DBT-MG) compared to MG alone within the framework of Taiwan's National Health Insurance program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All parameters for the Markov decision tree model, encompassing event probabilities, costs, and utilities (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs), were sourced from reputable literature, expert opinions, and official records. With 10,000 iterations, a 2-year cycle length, a 30-year time horizon, and a 2% annual discount rate, the analysis determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two screening methods. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted to demonstrate the robustness of findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICER of DBT-MG compared to MG was US$5971.5764/QALYs. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$33,004 (Gross Domestic Product of Taiwan in 2021) per QALY, more than 98% of the probabilistic simulations favored adopting DBT-MG versus MG. The one-way sensitivity analysis also shows that the ICER depended heavily on recall rates, biopsy rates, and positive predictive value (PPV2).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DBT-MG shows enhanced diagnostic efficacy, potentially diminishing recall costs. While exhibiting a higher biopsy rate, DBT-MG aids in the detection of early-stage breast cancers, reduces recall rates, and exhibits notably superior cost-effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":15796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health","volume":" ","pages":"933-946"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11442871/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Markov Modeling Study.\",\"authors\":\"Wei-Shiuan Chung, Thomas T H Wan, Yu Tsz Shiu, Hon-Yi Shi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44197-024-00239-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mammography (MG) has demonstrated its effectiveness in diminishing mortality and advanced-stage breast cancer incidences in breast screening initiatives. Notably, research has accentuated the superior diagnostic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). However, the scope of evidence validating the cost-effectiveness of DBT remains limited, prompting a requisite for more comprehensive investigation. The present study aimed to rigorously evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DBT plus MG (DBT-MG) compared to MG alone within the framework of Taiwan's National Health Insurance program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All parameters for the Markov decision tree model, encompassing event probabilities, costs, and utilities (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs), were sourced from reputable literature, expert opinions, and official records. With 10,000 iterations, a 2-year cycle length, a 30-year time horizon, and a 2% annual discount rate, the analysis determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two screening methods. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted to demonstrate the robustness of findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICER of DBT-MG compared to MG was US$5971.5764/QALYs. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$33,004 (Gross Domestic Product of Taiwan in 2021) per QALY, more than 98% of the probabilistic simulations favored adopting DBT-MG versus MG. The one-way sensitivity analysis also shows that the ICER depended heavily on recall rates, biopsy rates, and positive predictive value (PPV2).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DBT-MG shows enhanced diagnostic efficacy, potentially diminishing recall costs. While exhibiting a higher biopsy rate, DBT-MG aids in the detection of early-stage breast cancers, reduces recall rates, and exhibits notably superior cost-effectiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"933-946\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11442871/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44197-024-00239-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44197-024-00239-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在乳腺筛查活动中,乳腺 X 线照相术(MG)在降低乳腺癌死亡率和晚期乳腺癌发病率方面发挥了有效作用。值得注意的是,研究强调了数字乳腺断层合成术(DBT)的卓越诊断效果和成本效益。然而,验证 DBT 成本效益的证据范围仍然有限,因此需要进行更全面的调查。本研究旨在台湾国民健康保险计划框架内,严格评估 DBT 加 MG(DBT-MG)与单纯 MG 相比的成本效益:马尔可夫决策树模型的所有参数,包括事件概率、成本和效用(质量调整生命年,QALYs),均来自著名文献、专家意见和官方记录。分析采用 10,000 次迭代、2 年周期长度、30 年时间跨度和 2% 的年贴现率,确定了增量成本效益比 (ICER),以比较两种筛查方法的成本效益。还进行了概率和单向敏感性分析,以证明研究结果的稳健性:与 MG 相比,DBT-MG 的 ICER 为 5971.5764 美元/QALYs。在每 QALY 33,004 美元(2021 年台湾国内生产总值)的支付意愿(WTP)阈值下,超过 98% 的概率模拟结果倾向于采用 DBT-MG 而非 MG。单向敏感性分析还显示,ICER 在很大程度上取决于召回率、活检率和阳性预测值 (PPV2):结论:DBT-MG 显示出更高的诊断效果,有可能降低召回成本。虽然活检率较高,但 DBT-MG 有助于早期乳腺癌的检测,降低了召回率,并表现出显著的成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Markov Modeling Study.

Background: Mammography (MG) has demonstrated its effectiveness in diminishing mortality and advanced-stage breast cancer incidences in breast screening initiatives. Notably, research has accentuated the superior diagnostic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). However, the scope of evidence validating the cost-effectiveness of DBT remains limited, prompting a requisite for more comprehensive investigation. The present study aimed to rigorously evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DBT plus MG (DBT-MG) compared to MG alone within the framework of Taiwan's National Health Insurance program.

Methods: All parameters for the Markov decision tree model, encompassing event probabilities, costs, and utilities (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs), were sourced from reputable literature, expert opinions, and official records. With 10,000 iterations, a 2-year cycle length, a 30-year time horizon, and a 2% annual discount rate, the analysis determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two screening methods. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted to demonstrate the robustness of findings.

Results: The ICER of DBT-MG compared to MG was US$5971.5764/QALYs. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$33,004 (Gross Domestic Product of Taiwan in 2021) per QALY, more than 98% of the probabilistic simulations favored adopting DBT-MG versus MG. The one-way sensitivity analysis also shows that the ICER depended heavily on recall rates, biopsy rates, and positive predictive value (PPV2).

Conclusion: DBT-MG shows enhanced diagnostic efficacy, potentially diminishing recall costs. While exhibiting a higher biopsy rate, DBT-MG aids in the detection of early-stage breast cancers, reduces recall rates, and exhibits notably superior cost-effectiveness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.40%
发文量
57
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health is an esteemed international publication, offering a platform for peer-reviewed articles that drive advancements in global epidemiology and international health. Our mission is to shape global health policy by showcasing cutting-edge scholarship and innovative strategies.
期刊最新文献
Five Year Review of All Examined Corneal Tissue in a Tertiary Eye Care Center: Demographics and Surgical Indications. Antiretroviral Treatment Adherence among People Living with HIV in Taipei, Taiwan. A Multi Center, Epidemiological Study of Bone Tuberculosis in Southwest China from 2011 to 2023. The Impact of Undernutrition and Anemia on HIV-Related Mortality Among Children on ART in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Incompleteness and Misclassification of Maternal Deaths in Zimbabwe: Data from Two Reproductive Age Mortality Surveys, 2007-2008 and 2018-2019.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1