Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND The DMIST (Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial) reported improved breast cancer detection with digital mammography compared with film mammography in selected population subgroups, but it did not assess the economic value of digital relative to film mammography screening. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening for breast cancer. DESIGN Validated, discrete-event simulation model. DATA SOURCES Data from DMIST and publicly available U.S. data. TARGET POPULATION U.S. women age 40 years or older. TIME HORIZON Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE Societal and Medicare. INTERVENTION All-film mammography screening; all-digital mammography screening; and targeted digital mammography screening, which is age-targeted digital mammography (for women <50 years of age) and age- and density-targeted digital mammography (for women <50 years of age or women > or =50 years of age with dense breasts). OUTCOME MEASURES Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS All-digital mammography screening cost $331,000 (95% CI, $268,000 to $403,000) per QALY gained relative to all-film mammography screening but was more costly and less effective than targeted digital mammography screening. Targeted digital mammography screening resulted in more screen-detected cases of cancer and fewer deaths from cancer than either all-film or all-digital mammography screening, with cost-effectiveness estimates ranging from $26,500 (CI, $21,000 to $33,000) per QALY gained for age-targeted digital mammography to $84,500 (CI, $75,000 to $93,000) per QALY gained for age- and density-targeted digital mammography. In the Medicare population, the cost-effectiveness of density-targeted digital mammography screening varied from a base-case estimate of $97,000 (CI, $77,000 to $131,000) to $257,000 per QALY gained (CI, $91,000 to $536,000) in the alternative-case analyses, in which the sensitivity of film mammography was increased and the sensitivity of digital mammography in women with nondense breasts was decreased. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Results were sensitive to the cost of digital mammography and to the prevalence of dense breasts. LIMITATIONS Results were dependent on model assumptions and DMIST findings. CONCLUSION Relative to film mammography, screening for breast cancer by using all-digital mammography is not cost-effective. Age-targeted screening with digital mammography seems cost-effective, whereas density-targeted screening strategies are more costly and of uncertain value, particularly among women age 65 years or older.

[1]  D. Commerce Statistical abstract of the United States , 1978 .

[2]  A S Detsky,et al.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. , 1992, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[3]  L Kessler,et al.  Changes in the use of screening mammography: evidence from the 1987 and 1990 National Health Interview Surveys. , 1994, American journal of public health.

[4]  N Urban,et al.  Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. , 1995, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  C. J. Rosenquist,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. , 1995, JAMA.

[6]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials , 1998, The Lancet.

[7]  S. Cummings,et al.  Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. , 1999, JAMA.

[8]  J M Lewin,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. , 2001, Radiology.

[9]  E. Feuer,et al.  Trends in use of adjuvant multi-agent chemotherapy and tamoxifen for breast cancer in the United States: 1975-1999. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Per Skaane,et al.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study. , 2003, Radiology.

[12]  D. Atkins,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 65 years: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. , 2003, Annals of internal medicine.

[13]  D. Atkins,et al.  The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography beyond Age 65 Years , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  Martin L. Brown,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening: Preliminary results of a systematic review of the literature , 2004, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[15]  E. Feuer,et al.  Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States , 2005, Cancer Causes & Control.

[16]  D. Berry,et al.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer , 2005 .

[17]  Constantine A Gatsonis,et al.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. , 2005, Radiology.

[18]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  A. Paterson,et al.  Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. , 2005, The Lancet. Oncology.

[20]  A. Tosteson,et al.  Breast cancer risk factors in relation to breast density (United States) , 2006, Cancer Causes & Control.

[21]  Brenda White,et al.  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR , 2006 .

[22]  Maureen A Smith,et al.  Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  E. Feuer,et al.  Changing patterns in breast cancer incidence trends. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[24]  Natasha K. Stout,et al.  Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model , 2006 .

[25]  Bruce L Daniel,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. , 2006, JAMA.

[26]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Declines in invasive breast cancer and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy in a screening mammography population. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  Eric J Feuer,et al.  The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  Robert N Hoover,et al.  Breast cancer incidence, 1980-2006: combined roles of menopausal hormone therapy, screening mammography, and estrogen receptor status. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[30]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  The mammogram that cried Wolfe. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  M. Yaffe,et al.  American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography , 2007 .

[32]  R. Pfeiffer,et al.  Shifting breast cancer trends in the United States. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[33]  E. Pisano,et al.  Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[34]  M. Clarke WITHDRAWN: Multi-agent chemotherapy for early breast cancer. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.