Economic potential of abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) was introduced to reduce both examination and image reading times and to improve cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. The aim of this model-based economic study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of full protocol breast MRI (FB-MRI) vs. AB-MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis and a Markov model were designed to model the cumulative costs and effects of biennial screening in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from a US healthcare system perspective. Model input parameters for a cohort of women with dense breast tissue were adopted from recent literature. The impact of varying AB-MRI costs per examination as well as specificity on the resulting cost-effectiveness was modeled within deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: At an assumed cost per examination of $ 263 for AB-MRI (84% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination), the discounted cumulative costs of both MR-based strategies accounted comparably. Reducing the costs of AB-MRI below $ 259 (82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination, respectively), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FB-MRI exceeded the willingness to pay threshold and the AB-MRI-strategy should be considered preferable in terms of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings indicate that AB-MRI may be considered cost-effective compared to FB-MRI for screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer, as long as the costs per examination do not exceed 82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination. KEY POINTS: • Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI is affected by reductions in specificity and resulting false positive findings and increased recall rates. • Abbreviated breast MRI may be cost-effective up to a cost per examination of 82% of the cost of a full protocol examination. • Abbreviated breast MRI could be an economically preferable alternative to full protocol breast MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue.

Cost-Effectiveness of MR-Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Extremely Dense Breasts After Two Rounds of Screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography (MRM) vs. x-ray based mammography (XM) in two-yearly screening women of intermediate risk for breast cancer in the light of recent literature. METHODS: Decision analysis and Markov modelling were used to compare cumulative costs (in US-$) and outcomes (in QALYs) of MRM vs. XM over the model runtime of 20 years. The perspective of the U.S. healthcare system was selected. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated and related to a willingness to pay-threshold of $ 100,000 per QALY in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of variations of the input parameters. In particular, variations of the rate of false positive findings beyond the first screening round and their impact on cost-effectiveness were assessed. RESULTS: Breast cancer screening with MRM resulted in increased costs and superior effectiveness. Cumulative average costs of $ 6,081 per woman and cumulative effects of 15.12 QALYs were determined for MRM, whereas screening with XM resulted in costs of $ 5,810 and 15.10 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $ 13,493 per QALY gained. When the specificity of MRM in the second and subsequent screening rounds was varied from 92% to 99%, the ICER resulted in a range from $ 38,849 to $ 5,062 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Based on most recent data on the diagnostic performance beyond the first screening round, MRM may remain the economically preferable alternative in screening women of intermediate risk for breast cancer due to their dense breast tissue.

Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs. Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening Women with Intermediate Risk of Breast Cancer-How Low-Cost Must MRI Be?

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) offer superior diagnostic performance compared to conventional mammography in screening women with intermediate risk of breast cancer due to dense breast tissue. The aim of this model-based economic evaluation was to analyze whether AB-MRI is cost-effective in this cohort compared to DBT. METHODS: Decision analysis and Markov simulations were used to model the cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a time horizon of 30 years. Model input parameters were adopted from recent literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to test the stability of the model. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, the costs of an AB-MRI examination were defined to equal the costs of a full protocol acquisition. Two-yearly screening of women with dense breasts resulted in cumulative discounted costs of $8798 and $9505 for DBT and AB-MRI, and cumulative discounted effects of 19.23 and 19.27 QALYs, respectively, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $20,807 per QALY gained in the base-case scenario. By reducing the cost of an AB-MRI examination below a threshold of $241 in sensitivity analyses, AB-MRI would become cost-saving compared to DBT. CONCLUSION: In comparison to DBT, AB-MRI can be considered cost-effective up to a price per examination of $593 in screening patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer.

Impact of specificity on cost-effectiveness of screening women at high risk of breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging, mammography and ultrasound.

PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to analyze the comparative cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography vs conventional imaging in a screening setting for women with high risk of breast cancer, with particular focus on the impact of specificity of MRM. METHOD: Decision analytic modelling and Markov Modelling were applied to evaluate cumulative costs of each screening modality and their subsequent treatments as well as cumulative outcomes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). For the selected time horizon of 30 years, false positive and false negative results were included. Model input parameters for women with high risk of breast cancer were estimated based on published data from a US healthcare system perspective. Major influence factors were identified and evaluated in a deterministic sensitivity analysis. Based on current recommendations for economic evaluations, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the model stability. RESULTS: In a base-case analysis, screening with XM vs. MRM and treatment resulted in overall costs of $36,201.57 vs. $39,050.97 and a cumulative effectiveness of 19.53 QALYs vs. 19.59 QALYs. This led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $ 45,373.94 per QALY for MRM. US and XM + US resulted in ICER values higher than the willingness to pay (WTP). In the sensitivity analyses, MRM remained a cost-effective strategy for screening high-risk patients as long as the specificity of MRM did not drop below 86.7 %. CONCLUSION: In high-risk breast cancer patients, MRM can be regarded as a cost-effective alternative to XM in a yearly screening setting. Specificity may be an important cost driver in settings with yearly screening intervals.

A Multicentric Comparison of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Mapping and the Kaiser Score in the Assessment of Breast Lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicentric study, individual patient data from 3 different centers were analyzed. Consecutive patients receiving standardized multiparametric breast magnetic resonance imaging for standard nonscreening indications were included. At each center, 2 experienced radiologists with more than 5 years of experience retrospectively interpreted the examinations in consensus and applied the KS to every histologically verified lesion. The corresponding mean ADC of each lesion was measured using a Wielema type 4 region of interest. According to established methods, the KS and ADC were combined, yielding the KS+ score. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and compared between the KS, ADC, and KS+ (DeLong test). Likewise, the potential to help avoid unnecessary biopsies was compared between the KS, ADC, and KS+ based on established high sensitivity thresholds (McNemar test). RESULTS: A total of 450 lesions in 414 patients (mean age, 51.5 years; interquartile range, 42-60.8 years) were included, with 219 lesions being malignant (48.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-53.4%). The performance of the KS (AUROC, 0.915; CI, 0.886-0.939) was significantly better than that of the ADC (AUROC, 0.848; CI, 0.811-0.880; P < 0.001). The largest difference between these parameters was observed when assessing subcentimeter lesions (AUROC, 0.909 for KS; CI, 0.849-0.950 vs 0.811 for ADC; CI, 0.737-0.871; P = 0.02).The use of the KS+ (AUROC, 0.918; CI, 0.889-0.942) improved the performance slightly, but without any significant difference relative to a single KS or ADC reading (P = 0.64).When applying high sensitivity thresholds for avoiding unnecessary biopsies, the KS and ADC achieved equal sensitivity (97.7% for both; cutoff values, >4 for KS and ≤1.4 × 10-3 mm2/s for ADC). However, the rate of potentially avoidable biopsies was higher when using the KS (specificity: 65.4% for KS vs 32.9% for ADC; P < 0.0001). The KS was superior to the KS+ in avoiding unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Both the KS and ADC may be used to distinguish benign from malignant breast lesions. However, KS proved superior in this task including, most of all, when assessing small lesions less than 1 cm. Using the KS may avoid twice as many unnecessary biopsies, and the combination of both the KS and ADS does not improve diagnostic performance.

Cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography vs. conventional mammography in screening patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer - A model-based economic evaluation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of screening patients of intermediate risk of breast cancer with MR-Mammography (MRM) versus conventional mammography (XM). METHOD: A decision model for both diagnostic modalities and a subsequent markov model for the simulation of follow-up costs and outcomes was developed. Input parameters were acquired from published literature for this markov modelling study. The expected cumulative costs and outcomes were calculated for both modalities in a 30-year timeframe in US-dollar ($) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A deterministic sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis incorporating 30,000 Monte Carlo iterations were performed to investigate the model stability. RESULTS: In total, XM with its consecutive treatments resulted in total costs of $ 5,492.68 and an average cumulative quality of life of 18.87 QALYs, compared to MRM with costs of $ 5,878.66 and 18.92 QALYs. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for MRM was $ 8,797.60 per QALY - distinctly below international willingness-to-pay thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The results were confirmed within the limits of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate risk for breast cancer due to their dense breast tissue, two-yearly screening with MRM may be considered as cost-effective.

MRI for the assessment of malignancy in BI-RADS 4 mammographic microcalcifications.

PURPOSE: Assess the performance of breast MRI to diagnose breast cancer in BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications detected by mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, IRB-approved study included 248 consecutive contrast-enhanced breast MRI (1.5T, protocol in accordance with EUSOBI recommendations) performed to further diagnose BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications detected at mammography during a 3-year period. Standard of reference had to be established by histopathology. Routine consensus reading results by two radiologists were dichotomized as positive or negative and compared with the reference standard (benign vs malignant) to calculate diagnostic parameters. RESULTS: There were 107 malignant and 141 benign microcalcifications. Malignancy rates were 18.3% (23/126 BI-RADS 4a), 41.7% (25/60 BI-RADS 4b) and 95% (59/62 BI-RADS 4c). There were 103 true-positive, 116 true-negative, 25 false-positive, and 4 false-negative (one invasive cancer, three DCIS; 2 BI-RADS 4c, 1 BI-RADS 4b on mammography) breast MRI findings, effecting a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 96.3% (95%-CI 90.7-99.0%), 82.3% (95%-CI 75.0-88.2%), 80.5% (95%-CI 72.5-87.0%) and 96.7% (95%-CI 91.7-99.1%), respectively. CONCLUSION: MRI is an accurate tool to further diagnose BI-RADS 4a and 4b microcalcifications and may be helpful to avoid unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4a and 4b lesions. BI-RADS 4c microcalcifications should be biopsied irrespective of MRI findings.

Application of breast MRI for prediction of lymph node metastases - systematic approach using 17 individual descriptors and a dedicated decision tree.

BACKGROUND: The presence of lymph node metastases (LNMs) is one of the most important prognostic factors in breast cancer. PURPOSE: To correlate a detailed catalog of 17 descriptors in breast MRI (bMRI) with the presence of LNMs and to identify useful combinations of such descriptors for the prediction of LNMs using a dedicated decision tree. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A standardized protocol and study design was applied in this IRB-approved study (T1-weighted FLASH; 0.1 mmol/kg body weight Gd-DTPA; T2-weighted TSE; histological verification after bMRI). Two experienced radiologists performed prospective evaluation of the previously acquired examination in consensus. In every lesion 17 previously published descriptors were assessed. Subgroups of primary breast cancers with (N+: 97) and without LNM were created (N-: 253). The prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of each descriptor were correlated with the presence of LNM (chi-square test; diagnostic odds ratio/DOR). To identify useful combinations of descriptors for the prediction of LNM a chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) decision tree was applied. RESULTS: Seven of 17 descriptors were significantly associated with LNMs. The most accurate were "Skin thickening" (P < 0.001; DOR 5.9) and "Internal enhancement" (P < 0.001; DOR