A. Rezapour, H. Bouzarjomehri, Akhtar Shah-Savandi, Emad Karimianrad, N. Pirani, J. Arabloo, Samira Soleimanpoor, Y. Herandi
{"title":"数字乳房x线照相术与胶片x线照相术在乳腺癌筛查中的成本效益:一项系统综述","authors":"A. Rezapour, H. Bouzarjomehri, Akhtar Shah-Savandi, Emad Karimianrad, N. Pirani, J. Arabloo, Samira Soleimanpoor, Y. Herandi","doi":"10.4993/acrt.28.118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Mammography as the best method of diagnosing breast cancer in its early stages has been accepted in many countries. Digital mammography is in development and is used in breast cancer screening in countries such as the United States, however, cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening (DMS) compared to film mammography screening (FMS) is debatable. This study is designed to systematically review the available evidence in this regard. Methods: This study is designed as a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. The search was conducted on October 2019 on the PubMed, Web of Science core collection, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and ProQuest databases. All full economic evaluation studies (cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA)) that assessed DMS compared to FMS are included. The quality of final articles were evaluated by CHEERS checklist and data was collected using a data extraction form. Finally, the data was analyzed by a meta-synthesis method. Results: Five studies were included. Three of them were conducted in the U.S., one in the Australia, and one the Brazil. Studies show that despite the slight difference in the effectiveness of DMS, its costs increased more. Three studies concluded that age-targeted DMS and FMS might be cost-effective and two concluded biennial DMS might be cost-effective digital strategy, however one study concluded that biennial FMS is still cost-effective. Conclusion: There is currently little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of DMS over FMS and more evidence is needed, especially in developing countries. While the cost-effectiveness of DMS has not been fully confirmed, manufacturers are developing digital mammography; on the other hand, film mammography is obsoleting. Therefore, the move towards digital mammography, especially in developing countries, should be gradual and targeted.","PeriodicalId":35647,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography compared to film mammography in screening of breast cancer: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"A. Rezapour, H. Bouzarjomehri, Akhtar Shah-Savandi, Emad Karimianrad, N. Pirani, J. Arabloo, Samira Soleimanpoor, Y. Herandi\",\"doi\":\"10.4993/acrt.28.118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Mammography as the best method of diagnosing breast cancer in its early stages has been accepted in many countries. Digital mammography is in development and is used in breast cancer screening in countries such as the United States, however, cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening (DMS) compared to film mammography screening (FMS) is debatable. This study is designed to systematically review the available evidence in this regard. Methods: This study is designed as a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. The search was conducted on October 2019 on the PubMed, Web of Science core collection, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and ProQuest databases. All full economic evaluation studies (cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA)) that assessed DMS compared to FMS are included. The quality of final articles were evaluated by CHEERS checklist and data was collected using a data extraction form. Finally, the data was analyzed by a meta-synthesis method. Results: Five studies were included. Three of them were conducted in the U.S., one in the Australia, and one the Brazil. Studies show that despite the slight difference in the effectiveness of DMS, its costs increased more. Three studies concluded that age-targeted DMS and FMS might be cost-effective and two concluded biennial DMS might be cost-effective digital strategy, however one study concluded that biennial FMS is still cost-effective. Conclusion: There is currently little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of DMS over FMS and more evidence is needed, especially in developing countries. While the cost-effectiveness of DMS has not been fully confirmed, manufacturers are developing digital mammography; on the other hand, film mammography is obsoleting. Therefore, the move towards digital mammography, especially in developing countries, should be gradual and targeted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4993/acrt.28.118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4993/acrt.28.118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:乳腺造影术作为诊断癌症早期的最佳方法,已被许多国家所接受。在美国等国家,数字乳房X光检查正在发展中,并被用于癌症乳腺筛查,然而,与胶片乳房X光筛查(FMS)相比,数字乳腺X光检查(DMS)的成本效益是有争议的。本研究旨在系统地审查这方面的现有证据。方法:本研究采用PRISMA指南进行系统综述。搜索于2019年10月在PubMed、Web of Science核心收藏、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane图书馆和ProQuest数据库上进行。包括所有评估DMS与FMS的全面经济评估研究(成本效益分析(CEA)、成本效用分析(CUA)和成本效益分析)。使用CHEERS检查表对最终文章的质量进行评估,并使用数据提取表收集数据。最后,使用综合方法对数据进行分析。结果:纳入5项研究。其中三次在美国进行,一次在澳大利亚,一次是在巴西。研究表明,尽管DMS的有效性略有差异,但其成本增加更多。三项研究得出结论,针对年龄的DMS和FMS可能具有成本效益,两项研究得出的结论是,两年期DMS可能是具有成本效益的数字战略,但一项研究得出得出结论,两年期FMS仍然具有成本效益。结论:目前很少有证据表明DMS相对于FMS的成本效益,需要更多的证据,尤其是在发展中国家。虽然DMS的成本效益尚未得到充分证实,但制造商正在开发数字乳房X光检查;另一方面,钼靶x线片已经过时了。因此,数字化乳房X光检查的发展,特别是在发展中国家,应该是渐进的和有针对性的。
Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography compared to film mammography in screening of breast cancer: a systematic review
Background: Mammography as the best method of diagnosing breast cancer in its early stages has been accepted in many countries. Digital mammography is in development and is used in breast cancer screening in countries such as the United States, however, cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening (DMS) compared to film mammography screening (FMS) is debatable. This study is designed to systematically review the available evidence in this regard. Methods: This study is designed as a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. The search was conducted on October 2019 on the PubMed, Web of Science core collection, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and ProQuest databases. All full economic evaluation studies (cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA)) that assessed DMS compared to FMS are included. The quality of final articles were evaluated by CHEERS checklist and data was collected using a data extraction form. Finally, the data was analyzed by a meta-synthesis method. Results: Five studies were included. Three of them were conducted in the U.S., one in the Australia, and one the Brazil. Studies show that despite the slight difference in the effectiveness of DMS, its costs increased more. Three studies concluded that age-targeted DMS and FMS might be cost-effective and two concluded biennial DMS might be cost-effective digital strategy, however one study concluded that biennial FMS is still cost-effective. Conclusion: There is currently little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of DMS over FMS and more evidence is needed, especially in developing countries. While the cost-effectiveness of DMS has not been fully confirmed, manufacturers are developing digital mammography; on the other hand, film mammography is obsoleting. Therefore, the move towards digital mammography, especially in developing countries, should be gradual and targeted.