Urbanicity, Income, and Mammography-Use Disparities Among American Indian Women.

INTRODUCTION: Reported breast cancer screening among American Indian women is consistently below that of White women. The last claims-based trends were from 1991 to 2001. This study updates mammography trends for American Indian women and examines the impact of race, urbanicity, and income on long-term mammography use. METHODS: This was a multi-year (2005-2019), retrospective study of women aged 40-89 years using a 5% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries residing in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Washington. This study used multivariable logistic regression to examine the impact of urbanicity and income on receiving mammography for American Indian women compared with that for White women. Analyses were conducted in 2022. RESULTS: Overall, annual age-adjusted mammography use declined from 205 per 1,000 in 2005 to 165 per 1,000 in 2019. The slope of these declines was significantly steeper (difference = -2.41, p<0.001) for White women (-3.06) than for American Indian women (-0.65). Mammography-use odds across all urbanicity categories were less for American Indian women than for White women compared with those of their respective metropolitan counterparts (e.g., rural: 0.96, 95% CI=0.77, 1.20 for American Indian women and 1.47, 99% CI=1.39, 1.57 for White women). Although residing in higher-income communities was not associated with mammography use for American Indian women, it was 31% higher for White women (OR=1.31, 99% CI=1.28, 1.34). CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in annual age-adjusted mammography use between American Indian and White women narrowed between 2005 and 2019. However, the association of urbanicity and community income on mammography use differs substantially between American Indian and White women. Policies to reduce disparities need to consider these differences.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of risk-based breast cancer screening in Urban Hebei Province.

To evaluate the implementations of Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei and to model the cost-effectiveness of a risk-based breast Cancer Screening Program. Women aged 40-74 years were invited to participate the Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei form 2016 to 2020 by completing questionnaires to collect information about breast cancer exposure. Clinical screening including ultrasound and mammography examination were performed. We developed a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY), of a high-risk breast Cancer Screening Program. Nine screening strategies and no screening were included in the study. The age-specific incidence, transition probability data and lifetime treatment costs were derived and adopted from other researches. Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were estimated as the ratios of the additional costs of the screening strategies to the QLYG compared to no screening. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated based on the comparison of a lower cost strategies to the next more expensive and effective strategies after excluding dominated strategies and extendedly dominated strategies. ICERs were used to compare with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analysis was explored the influence factors. A total of 84,029 women completed a risk assessment questionnaire, from which 20,655 high-risk breast cancer females were evaluated, with a high-risk rate of 24.58%. There were 13,392 high-risk females completed the screening program, with participation rate was 64.84%. Undergoing ultrasound, mammography and combined screening, the suspicious positive detection rates were 15.00%, 9.20% and 19.30%, and the positive detection rates were 2.11%, 2.76% and 3.83%, respectively. According to the results by Markov model, at the end of 45 cycle, the early diagnosis rates were 55.53%, 60.68% and 62.47% underwent the annual screening by ultrasound, mammography and combined, the proportion of advanced cancer were 17.20%, 15.85% and 15.36%, respectively. Different screening method and interval yield varied. In the exploration of various scenarios, annual ultrasound screening is the most cost-effective strategy with the ICER of ¥116,176.15/QALY. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are robust. Although it was not cost effective, combined ultrasound and mammography screening was an effective strategy for higher positive detection rate of breast cancer. High-risk population-based breast cancer screening by ultrasound annually was the most cost-effective strategy in Urban Hebei Province.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography Beyond Age 75 Years : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden. DESIGN: Markov microsimulation model. DATA SOURCES: SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS). TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: National health payer. INTERVENTION: Screening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast cancer death, survival, and costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Extending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Costs per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography. LIMITATION: No randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs. CONCLUSION: Although annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Cost-effectiveness of screening mammography in a low income country: a Markov simulation analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women. Screening mammography is the only imaging screening study for breast cancer with a proven. mortality benefit. This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of screening mammography in Ethiopia. METHODS: Multistate Markov model was used for computer simulation to estimate cost and health benefits of screening mammography interventions for age-group of 40-49 years and 50-59 years. The cost-effectiveness analysis was made for 4 policies based on where the screening mammography procedures were conducted: government institution only, the private institution only, 50% ratio for each, and 10% private institution policy. Outputs were expressed in total cost, life-years gained (LYG) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). RESULTS: All 4 policies of annual screening mammography failed to achieve acceptable ICER and lead to a net loss in INMB. The lowest ICER value was for government institution-only policy with 3510.3 USD/LYG and 3224.9 USD/LYG both above the cost-effectiveness threshold of 2808.5 USD. The cost per single death averted for each group was 110,206.7 USD and 77,088.2 USD for age-group 40-49 years and 50-59 years respectively. CONCLUSION: Screening mammography could not be shown to be cost-effective in Ethiopia with the current low cost-effectiveness threshold. Alternative screening approach like annual clinical breast examination may need to be investigated.

The PROCEM study protocol: Added value of preoperative contrast-enhanced mammography in staging of malignant breast lesions - a prospective randomized multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Correct preoperative estimation of the malignant extent is crucial for optimal planning of breast cancer surgery. The sensitivity of mammography is lower in dense breasts, and additional imaging techniques are sometimes warranted. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown similar sensitivity and in some cases better specificity, than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in small, observational studies. CEM may be more cost-effective than MRI, and may provide better identification of the tumor extent, however, no randomized trials have been performed to date to investigate the added value of CEM. In a feasibility study, we found that the treatment was changed in 10/47 (21%) cases after additional CEM. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the added value of CEM in preoperative staging of breast cancer in a randomized study. METHOD: This prospective randomized study will include 440 patients with strongly suspected or established diagnosis of breast malignancy, based on assessment with mammography, ultrasound and core biopsy/cytology, and for whom primary surgery is planned. Patients will be randomized 1:1 using a web-based randomization tool to additional investigation with CEM or no further imaging. The CEM findings will be taken into consideration, which may lead to changes in primary treatment, which is the primary endpoint of this study. Secondary endpoints include rate of reoperation and number of avoidable mastectomies, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of additional CEM. Patient-reported health-related quality of life will be investigated at 1 year with the validated Breast-Q™ questionnaire. The rate of local recurrence or new cancer ipsi- or contralaterally within 5 years will be assessed from medical records and pathology reports. DISCUSSION: The aim of this trial is to explore the added value of CEM in preoperative staging of breast cancer. The results obtained from this study will contribute to our knowledge on CEM as an additional imaging method to standard investigation with digital mammography and ultrasound. The findings may also provide additional information on which patient groups would benefit from CEM, and on the economic aspects of CEM in standard preoperative practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov , registration no: NCT04437602 , date of registration: June 18, 2020.

Using Risk Stratification to Optimize Mammography Screening in Chinese Women.

Background: The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening among Chinese women remains contentious. Here, we characterized breast cancer (BC) epidemiology in Hong Kong and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of personalized risk-based screening. Methods: We used the Hong Kong Breast Cancer Study (a case-control study with 3501 cases and 3610 controls) and Hong Kong Cancer Registry to develop a risk stratification model based on well-documented risk factors. We used the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study to validate the model. We considered risk-based programs with different screening age ranges and risk thresholds under which women were eligible to join if their remaining BC risk at the starting age exceeded the threshold. Results: The lifetime risk (15-99 years) of BC ranged from 1.8% to 26.6% with a mean of 6.8%. Biennial screening was most cost-effective when the starting age was 44 years, and screening from age 44 to 69 years would reduce breast cancer mortality by 25.4% (95% credible interval [CrI] = 20.5%-29.4%) for all risk strata. If the risk threshold for this screening program was 8.4% (the average remaining BC risk among US women at their recommended starting age of 50 years), the coverage was 25.8%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$18 151 (95% CrI = $10 408-$27 663) per quality-of-life-year (QALY) compared with no screening. The ICER of universal screening was $34 953 (95% CrI = $22 820-$50 268) and $48 303 (95% CrI = $32 210-$68 000) per QALY compared with no screening and risk-based screening with 8.4% threshold, respectively. Conclusion: Organized BC screening in Chinese women should commence as risk-based programs. Outcome data (e.g., QALY loss because of false-positive mammograms) should be systemically collected for optimizing the risk threshold.

Telemammography for breast cancer screening: a cost-effective approach in Argentina.

OBJECTIVES: Argentina is a low and middle-income country (LMIC) with a highly fragmented healthcare system that conflicts with access to healthcare stated by the country's Universal Health Coverage plan. A tele-mammography network could improve access to breast cancer screening decreasing its mortality. This research aims to conduct an economic evaluation of the implementation of a tele-mammography program to improve access to healthcare. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed to explore the incremental benefit of annual tele-mammography screening for at-risk Argentinian women over 40 years old. A Markov model was developed to simulate annual mammography or tele-mammography screening in two hypothetical population-based cohorts of asymptomatic women. Parameter uncertainty was evaluated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Model structure uncertainty was also explored to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: It was estimated that 31 out of 100 new cases of breast cancer would be detected by mammography and 39/100 by tele-mammography. The model returned an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £26 051/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) which is lower than the WHO-recommended threshold of £26 288/QALY for Argentina. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed the ICER is most sensitive to the uptake and sensitivity of the screening tests. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed tele-mammography is cost-effective in 59% of simulations. DISCUSSION: Tele-mammography should be considered for adoption as it could improve access to expertise in underserved areas where adherence to screening protocols is poor. Disaggregated data by province is needed for a better- informed policy decision. Telemedicine could also be beneficial in ensuring the continuity of care when health systems are under stress like in the current COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: There is a 59% chance that tele-mammography is cost-effective compared to mammography for at-risk Argentinian women over 40- years old, and should be adopted to improve access to healthcare in underserved areas of the country.

The cost-effectiveness of adding tomosynthesis to mammography-based breast cancer screening: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies show that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) can reduce recall rates and increases rates of breast cancer detection. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of DBT plus DM versus DM alone in British Columbia and to identify parameters that can improve the efficiency of breast cancer screening programs. METHODS: We conducted an economic analysis based on data from a cohort of screening participants in the BC Cancer Breast Screening Program. The decision model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes for participants in breast cancer screening who were aged 40-74 years between 2012 and 2017. We analyzed rates of health care resource utilization, health state costs and estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), to measure incremental cost differences per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from the addition of DBT to DM-based screening, from the government payer's perspective. RESULTS: The model simulated economic outcomes for 112 249 screening participants. We found that the ICER was highly sensitive to recall rate reductions and insensitive to parameters related to cancer detection. If DBT plus DM can reduce absolute recall rates by more than 2.1%, the base-case scenario had an ICER of $17 149 per QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, more than 95% of the probabilistic simulations favoured the adoption of DBT plus DM versus DM alone. The ICER depended heavily on the ability of DBT plus DM to reduce recall rates. INTERPRETATION: The addition of DBT to DM would be considered cost-effective owing to the low positive predictive value of screening with DM alone. Reductions in false-positive recall rates should be monitored closely.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography in Singapore: A Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited research is available on the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening programs in Asian countries. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Singapore's national mammography screening program, implemented in 2002, recommending annual screening between ages 40 and 49 and biennial screening between ages 50 and 69, and alternative screening scenarios taking into account important country-specific factors. METHODS: We used national data from Singapore in the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Fatal diameter (MISCAN-Fadia) model to simulate 302 screening scenarios for 10 million women born between 1910 and 1969. Screening scenarios varied by starting and ending age, screening interval, and attendance. Outcome measures included life-years gained (LYG), breast cancer deaths averted, false positives, overdiagnosis, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), costs (in 2002 Singapore dollars; S$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and effects were calculated and discounted with 3% using a health care provider's perspective. RESULTS: Singapore's current screening program at observed attendance levels required 54,158 mammograms per 100,000 women, yielded 1,054 LYG, and averted 57 breast cancer deaths. At attendance rates ≥50%, the current program was near the efficiency frontier. Most scenarios on the efficiency frontier started screening at age 40. The ICERs of the scenarios on the efficiency frontiers ranged between S$10,186 and S$56,306/QALY, which is considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of S$70,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Singapore's current screening program lies near the efficiency frontier, and starting screening at age 40 or 45 is cost-effective. Furthermore, enhancing screening attendance rates would increase benefits while maintaining cost-effectiveness. IMPACT: Screening all women at age 40 or 45 is cost-efficient in Singapore, and a policy change may be considered.

Understanding Regional Variation in the Cost of Breast Cancer Screening Among Privately Insured Women in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years is prevalent and costly, with costs varying substantially across US regions. Newer approaches to mammography may improve cancer detection but also increase screening costs. We assessed factors associated with regional variation in screening costs. METHODS: We used Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a large US commercial claims database accessed through secure portal, to assess regional variation in screening utilization and costs. We included screening mammography±digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, diagnostic mammography±DBT, diagnostic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy, and evaluated their utilization and costs. We assessed regional variation in annual per-screened-beneficiary costs and examined potential savings from reducing regional variation. RESULTS: Of the 2,257,393 privately insured women, 41.2% received screening mammography in 2017 (range: 26.6%-54.2% across regions). Wide regional variation was found in the DBT proportion (0.7%-91.1%) and mean costs of DBT ($299; range: $113-714) and 2-dimensional (D) mammograms ($213; range: $107-471). In one-fourth of the regions, the mean DBT cost was lower than the mean 2D mammography cost in the full sample. Regional variation in the per-screened-beneficiary cost (mean: $353; range: $151-751) was mainly attributable to variation in the cost of DBT (accounting for 23.4% of regional variation) and 2D mammography (23.0%). Reducing regional variation by decreasing the highest values to the national mean was projected to save $79-335 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: The mean mammogram cost for privately insured women ages 40-49 varies 7-fold across regions, driving substantial variation in breast cancer screening costs. Reducing this regional variation would substantially decrease the screening costs.

Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast density classification is largely determined by mammography, making the timing of the first screening mammogram clinically important. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening strategies that are stratified by breast density. DESIGN: Microsimulation model to generate the natural history of breast cancer for women with and those without dense breasts and assessment of the cost-effectiveness of strategies tailored to breast density and nontailored strategies. DATA SOURCES: Model parameters from the literature; statistical modeling; and analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. TARGET POPULATION: Women aged 40 years or older. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: No screening; biennial or triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years; annual mammography from age 50 to 75 years for women with dense breasts at age 50 years and biennial or triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years for those without dense breasts at age 50 years; and annual mammography at age 40 to 75 years for women with dense breasts at age 40 years and biennial or triennial mammography at age 50 to 75 years for those without dense breasts at age 40 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Baseline screening at age 40 years followed by annual screening at age 40 to 75 years for women with dense breasts and biennial screening at age 50 to 75 years for women without dense breasts was effective and cost-effective, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36 200 per QALY versus the biennial strategy at age 50 to 75 years. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability that the density-stratified strategy at age 40 years was optimal was 56% compared with 6 other strategies. LIMITATION: Findings may not be generalizable outside the United States. CONCLUSION: The study findings advocate for breast density-stratified screening with baseline mammography at age 40 years. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Patient-Reported Deterrents to Adjunct Breast Cancer Screening of Patients With Dense Breasts.

BACKGROUND. The success of adjunct breast cancer screening of women with dense breasts can be enhanced by identifying and addressing patient concerns regarding adjunct screening modalities. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to identify patient characteristics associated with patient-reported concerns about adjunct breast cancer screening to facilitate the development of a more effective screening model for women with dense breasts. METHODS. Patients with dense breasts completed surveys between March 2017 and February 2018 regarding factors that might deter them from adjunct screening and about which of three hypothetical screening examinations they might prefer. Additional patient data were extracted from medical records, and socioeconomic data were imputed from federal census data. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify associations between patient characteristics and patient attitudes toward adjunct screening. RESULTS. Surveys were completed by 508 women (median age, 59.0 years) with dense breasts. Lower confidence in the sensitivity of mammography of dense breasts was independently associated with lesser concern about adjunct screening examination time (1 divided by adjusted odds ratio [1/AOR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.89]), additional imaging that could result (1/AOR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31-0.85]), and greater preference for a more sensitive hypothetical screening examination (1/AOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.20-2.86]). Concern about examination cost, the most commonly cited deterrent to adjunct screening (66.9%), was independently associated with younger age (1/AOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.01-2.08]) but not with imputed socioeconomic variables or other tested variables. Younger age was also associated with lesser concern about pain (1/AOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.99]), additional imaging that could result (1/AOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.76]), and IV contrast administration (1/AOR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.83]). CONCLUSION. Younger age and lower confidence in the sensitivity of mammography among women with dense breasts are independently associated with lesser patient concern about common deterrents to adjunct breast cancer screening. Younger age is independently associated with greater concern about the cost of undergoing adjunct breast cancer screening. CLINICAL IMPACT. Concerns about adjunct screening may be reduced by educating patients about the lower sensitivity of mammography of dense breasts and by finding ways to address or mitigate the financial and daily-life impact of adjunct screening, especially for younger patients.

Demand for Cancer Screening Services: Results From Randomized Controlled Discrete Choice Experiments.

OBJECTIVES: Low uptake of cancer screening services is a global concern. Our aim was to understand factors that influence the screening decision, including screening and treatment subsidies and a gain-frame message designed to present screening as a win-win. METHODS: We analyzed preferences for mammography and Pap smear among women in Singapore by means of discrete choice experiments while randomly exposing half of respondents to a gain-framed public health message promoting the benefits of screening. RESULTS: Results showed that the message did not influence stated uptake, and given the levels shown, respondents were influenced more by treatment attributes, including effectiveness and out-of-pocket cost should they test positive, than by screening attributes, including the offer of a monetary incentive for screening. Respondents also underestimated the survival chances of screen-detected breast and cervical cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Combined, these findings suggest that correcting misconceptions about screen-detected cancer prognosis or providing greater financial protection for those who test positive could be more effective and more cost-effective than subsidizing screening directly in increasing screening uptakes.

Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising screening test, but its outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain.PurposeTo determine if biennial DBT is cost-effective in a screening setting, when compared with digital mammography (DM) in the Netherlands, and to quantify the uncertainty.Materials and MethodsIn this study, performed from March 2018 to February 2019, the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis model was used to conduct a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), consisting of 10 000 model runs with 1 000 000 women simulated per run. The Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis package and the Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information tool were used to process PSA outcomes. Two simulated cohorts born in 1970 were invited to undergo biennial screening between ages 50 and 74 years-one cohort was assigned to DM screening, and one was assigned to DBT screening. DM input parameters were based on data from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. DBT parameters were based on literature and expert opinion. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €20 000 ($22 000) and €35 000 ($38 500) per life-year gained (LYG) were considered. Effects and costs were discounted at 3.5% per year.ResultsDBT resulted in a gain of 13 additional life-years per 1000 women invited to screening (7% increase, 13 of 193), followed over lifetime, compared with DM and led to 2% (four of 159) fewer false-positive results. DBT screening led to incremental discounted lifetime effects of 5.09 LYGs (95% confidence interval: -0.80, 9.70) and an increase in lifetime costs of €137 555 ($151 311) per 1000 women (95% confidence interval: €31 093 [$34 202], €263 537 [$289 891]) compared with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €27 023 ($29 725) per LYG. The probability of DBT being more cost-effective was 0.36 at €20 000 and 0.66 at €35 000 per LYG.ConclusionSwitching from digital mammography to biennial digital breast tomosynthesis is not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per life-year gained, but digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher probability of being more cost-effective than digital mammography at a threshold of €35 000 per life-year gained.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue.

Clinical Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening for Survivors of Childhood Cancer Treated With Chest Radiation : A Comparative Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance with annual mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for female survivors of childhood cancer treated with chest radiation, yet benefits, harms, and costs are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening strategies in childhood cancer survivors. DESIGN: Collaborative simulation modeling using 2 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models. DATA SOURCES: Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and published data. TARGET POPULATION: Women aged 20 years with a history of chest radiotherapy. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Payer. INTERVENTION: Annual MRI with or without mammography, starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast cancer deaths averted, false-positive screening results, benign biopsy results, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Lifetime breast cancer mortality risk without screening was 10% to 11% across models. Compared with no screening, starting at age 25 years, annual mammography with MRI averted the most deaths (56% to 71%) and annual MRI (without mammography) averted 56% to 62%. Both strategies had the most screening tests, false-positive screening results, and benign biopsy results. For an ICER threshold of less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, screening beginning at age 30 years was preferred. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Assuming lower screening performance, the benefit of adding mammography to MRI increased in both models, although the conclusions about preferred starting age remained unchanged. LIMITATION: Elevated breast cancer risk was based on survivors diagnosed with childhood cancer between 1970 and 1986. CONCLUSION: Early initiation (at ages 25 to 30 years) of annual breast cancer screening with MRI, with or without mammography, might reduce breast cancer mortality by half or more in survivors of childhood cancer. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health.

Network Meta-analysis for the Diagnostic Approach to Pathologic Nipple Discharge.

Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is one of the most common breast-related complaints for referral because of its supposed association with breast cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, mammogram, cytology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ductoscopy in patients with PND, as well as to determine the best diagnostic strategy to assess the risk of malignancy as cause for PND. Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched to collect relevant literature from the inception of each of the diagnostic methods until January 27, 2020. The search yielded 1472 original citations, of which 36 studies with 3764 patients were finally included for analysis. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed using an NMA approach to evaluate the combined odd ratios and to determine the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for the detection of breast cancer in patients with PND. Additionally, a subgroup meta-analysis comparing ductoscopy to MRI when conventional imaging was negative was also performed. According to this NMA, sensitivity for detection of malignancy in patients with PND was highest for MRI (83%), followed by ductoscopy (58%), ultrasound (50%), cytology (38%), and mammogram (22%). Specificity was highest for mammogram (93%) followed by ductoscopy (92%), cytology (90%), MRI (76%), and ultrasound (69%). Diagnostic accuracy was the highest for ductoscopy (88%), followed by cytology (82%), MRI (77%), mammogram (76%), and ultrasound (65%). Subgroup meta-analysis (comparing ductoscopy to MRI when ultrasound and mammogram were negative) showed no significant difference in sensitivity, but ductoscopy was statistically significantly better with regard to specificity and diagnostic accuracy. The results from this NMA indicate that although ultrasound and mammogram may remain low-cost useful first choices for the detection of malignancy in patients with PND, ductoscopy outperforms most imaging techniques (especially MRI) and cytology.

Risk stratification in breast cancer screening: Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit ratios for low-risk and high-risk women.

In mammography screening programmes, women are screened according to a one-size-fits-all principle. Tailored screening, based on risk levels, may lead to a better balance of benefits and harms. With microsimulation modelling, we determined optimal mammography screening strategies for women at lower (relative risk [RR] 0.75) and higher (RR 1.8) than average risk of breast cancer, eligible for screening, using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of current uniform screening in the Netherlands (biennial [B] 50-74) as a threshold ICER. Strategies varied by interval (annual [A], biennial, triennial [T]) and age range. The number of life-years gained (LYG), breast cancer deaths averted, overdiagnosed cases, false-positive mammograms, ICERs and harm-benefit ratios were calculated. Optimal risk-based screening scenarios, below the threshold ICER of €8883/LYG, were T50-71 (€7840/LYG) for low-risk and B40-74 (€6062/LYG) for high-risk women. T50-71 screening in low-risk women resulted in a 33% reduction in false-positive findings, a similar reduction in costs and improved harm-benefit ratios compared to the current screening schedule. B40-74 in high-risk women led to an increase in screening benefit, compared to current B50-74 screening, but a relatively higher increase in false-positive findings. In conclusion, optimal screening consisted of a longer interval and lower stopping age than current uniform screening for low-risk women, and a lower starting age for high-risk women. Extending the interval for women at lower risk from biennial to triennial screening reduced harms and costs while maintaining most of the screening benefit.

Lifting the fog of confusion about breast cancer screening guidelines: Surprise - it's about the money!

Large amounts of misinformation denigrating the benefits of breast cancer screening have been published over the past 50 years and continue to be published. Each effort to reduce breast cancer screening has been refuted, scientifically, but the efforts continue. The motivation has been unclear until the recent guidelines issued by the American Society of Breast Surgeons who support annual screening starting at the age of 40 contrasted with the American College of Physicians who advocated delaying screening until the age of 50 and then biennially. An analysis of the facts can only lead to the conclusion that delayed screening has been chosen to save money rather than lives.

The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate at which sensitivity digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would become cost-effective compared to digital mammography (DM) in a population breast cancer screening program, given a constant estimate of specificity. METHODS: In a microsimulation model, the cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for women aged 50-75 was simulated for three scenarios: DBT for women with dense breasts and DM for women with fatty breasts (scenario 1), DBT for the whole population (scenario 2) or maintaining DM screening (reference). For DM, sensitivity was varied depending on breast density from 65 to 87%, and for DBT from 65 to 100%. The specificity was set at 96.5% for both DM and DBT. Direct medical costs were considered, including screening, biopsy and treatment costs. Scenarios were considered to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below €20,000 per life year gain (LYG). RESULTS: For both scenarios, the ICER was more favourable at increasing DBT sensitivity. Compared with DM screening, 0.8-10.2% more LYGs were found when DBT sensitivity was at least 75% for scenario 1, and 4.7-18.7% when DBT sensitivity was at least 80% for scenario 2. At €96 per DBT, scenario 1 was cost-effective at a DBT sensitivity of at least 90%, and at least 95% for scenario 2. At €80 per DBT, these values decreased to 80% and 90%, respectively. CONCLUSION: DBT is more likely to be a cost-effective alternative to mammography in women with dense breasts. Whether DBT could be cost-effective in a general population highly depends on DBT costs. KEY POINTS: • DBT could be a cost-effective screening modality for women with dense breasts when its sensitivity is at least 90% at a maximum cost per screen of €96. • DBT has the potential to be cost-effective for screening all women when sensitivity is at least 90% at a maximum cost per screen of €80. • Whether DBT could be used as an alternative to mammography for screening all women is highly dependent on the cost of DBT per screen.