Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers

Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Breast Density

Importance

Information on long-term benefits and harms of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with or without supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is needed for clinical and policy discussions, particularly for patients with dense breasts.

Objective

To project long-term population-based outcomes for breast cancer mammography screening strategies (DBT or digital mammography) with or without supplemental MRI by breast density.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Collaborative modeling using 3 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer simulation models informed by US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data. Simulated women born in 1980 with average breast cancer risk were included. Modeling analyses were conducted from January 2020 to December 2023.

Intervention

Annual or biennial mammography screening with or without supplemental MRI by breast density starting at ages 40, 45, or 50 years through age 74 years.

Main outcomes and Measures

Lifetime breast cancer deaths averted, false-positive recall and false-positive biopsy recommendations per 1000 simulated women followed-up from age 40 years to death summarized as means and ranges across models.

Results

Biennial DBT screening for all simulated women started at age 50 vs 40 years averted 7.4 vs 8.5 breast cancer deaths, respectively, and led to 884 vs 1392 false-positive recalls and 151 vs 221 false-positive biopsy recommendations, respectively. Biennial digital mammography had similar deaths averted and slightly more false-positive test results than DBT screening. Adding MRI for women with extremely dense breasts to biennial DBT screening for women aged 50 to 74 years increased deaths averted (7.6 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (919 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (180 vs 151). Extending supplemental MRI to women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts further increased deaths averted (8.0 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (1088 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (343 vs 151). The same strategy for women aged 40 to 74 years averted 9.5 deaths but led to 1850 false-positive recalls and 628 false-positive biopsy recommendations. Annual screening modestly increased estimated deaths averted but markedly increased estimated false-positive results.

Conclusions and relevance

In this model-based comparative effectiveness analysis, supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts added to DBT screening led to greater benefits and increased harms. The balance of this trade-off for supplemental MRI use was more favorable when MRI was targeted to women with extremely dense breasts who comprise approximately 10% of the population.

Economic evaluation of breast MRI in screening - a systematic review and basic approach to cost-effectiveness analyses

Background

Economic evaluations have become an accepted methodology for decision makers to allocate resources in healthcare systems. Particularly in screening, where short-term costs are associated with long-term benefits, and adverse effects of screening intermingle, cost-effectiveness analyses provide a means to estimate the economic value of screening.

Purpose

To introduce the methodology of economic evaluations and to review the existing evidence on cost-effectiveness of MR-based breast cancer screening.

Materials and methods

The various concepts and techniques of economic evaluations critical to the interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses are briefly introduced. In a systematic review of the literature, economic evaluations from the years 2000-2022 are reviewed.

Results

Despite a considerable heterogeneity in the reported input variables, outcome categories and methodological approaches, cost-effectiveness analyses report favorably on the economic value of breast MRI screening for different risk groups, including both short- and long-term costs and outcomes.

Conclusion

Economic evaluations indicate a strongly favorable economic value of breast MRI screening for women at high risk and for women with dense breast tissue.

Calibration and Validation of the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) Microsimulation Model Using Deep Neural Networks

OBJECTIVES

Machine learning (ML)-based emulators improve the calibration of decision-analytical models, but their performance in complex microsimulation models is yet to be determined.

METHODS

We demonstrated the use of an ML-based emulator with the Colorectal Cancer (CRC)-Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) model, which includes 23 unknown natural history input parameters to replicate the CRC epidemiology in the United States. We first generated 15,000 input combinations and ran the CRC-AIM model to evaluate CRC incidence, adenoma size distribution, and the percentage of small adenoma detected by colonoscopy. We then used this data set to train several ML algorithms, including deep neural network (DNN), random forest, and several gradient boosting variants (i.e., XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost) and compared their performance. We evaluated 10 million potential input combinations using the selected emulator and examined input combinations that best estimated observed calibration targets. Furthermore, we cross-validated outcomes generated by the CRC-AIM model with those made by CISNET models. The calibrated CRC-AIM model was externally validated using the United Kingdom Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST).

RESULTS

The DNN with proper preprocessing outperformed other tested ML algorithms and successfully predicted all 8 outcomes for different input combinations. It took 473 s for the trained DNN to predict outcomes for 10 million inputs, which would have required 190 CPU-years without our DNN. The overall calibration process took 104 CPU-days, which included building the data set, training, selecting, and hyperparameter tuning of the ML algorithms. While 7 input combinations had acceptable fit to the targets, a combination that best fits all outcomes was selected as the best vector. Almost all of the predictions made by the best vector laid within those from the CISNET models, demonstrating CRC-AIM's cross-model validity. Similarly, CRC-AIM accurately predicted the hazard ratios of CRC incidence and mortality as reported by UKFSST, demonstrating its external validity. Examination of the impact of calibration targets suggested that the selection of the calibration target had a substantial impact on model outcomes in terms of life-year gains with screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Emulators such as a DNN that is meticulously selected and trained can substantially reduce the computational burden of calibrating complex microsimulation models.

HIGHLIGHTS

Calibrating a microsimulation model, a process to find unobservable parameters so that the model fits observed data, is computationally complex.We used a deep neural network model, a popular machine learning algorithm, to calibrate the Colorectal Cancer Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) model.We demonstrated that our approach provides an efficient and accurate method to significantly speed up calibration in microsimulation models.The calibration process successfully provided cross-model validation of CRC-AIM against 3 established CISNET models and also externally validated against a randomized controlled trial.

Barriers to Implementation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Clinical Practice: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Accumulating evidence shows that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has higher diagnostic performance than digital mammography and ultrasound and comparable diagnostic performance to MRI for various indications. CEM also offers certain practical advantages for patients. Nevertheless, the clinical implementation of CEM has been limited because of a range of factors. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review explores such factors hindering CEM implementation. These factors include the following: the risks of iodinated contrast media, increased radiation exposure, indications for which CEM is not the preferred test or for which further evidence is needed, workflow adjustments needed when performing CEM examinations, incomplete availability of CEM-guided biopsy systems, and reimbursement challenges. Considerations that currently mitigate or are expected to mitigate these factors are also highlighted.

Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Children's Oncology Group Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Chest-Irradiated Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the Children's Oncology Group Guideline recommendation for breast cancer (BC) screening using mammography (MAM) and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in female chest-irradiated childhood Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), increasingly replacing MAM in practice, was also examined.

METHODS

Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), BC mortality, health care costs, and false-positive screen frequencies of undergoing annual MAM, DBT, MRI, MAM + MRI, and DBT + MRI from age 25 to 74 years were estimated by microsimulation. BC risks and non-BC mortality were estimated from female 5-year survivors of HL in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and the US population. Test performance of MAM and MRI was synthesized from HL studies, and that of DBT from the general population. Costs (2017 US dollars [USD]) and utility weights were obtained from the medical literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.

RESULTS

With 100% screening adherence, annual BC screening extended LYs by 0.34-0.46 years over no screening. If the willingness-to-pay threshold to gain a quality-adjusted LY was ICER < $100,000 USD, annual MAM at age 25-74 years was the only cost-effective strategy. When nonadherence was taken into consideration, only annual MAM at age 30-74 years (ICER = $56,972 USD) was cost-effective. Supplementing annual MAM with MRI costing $545 USD was not cost-effective under either adherence condition. If MRI costs were reduced to $300 USD, adding MRI to annual MAM at age 30-74 years could become more cost-effective, particularly in the reduced adherence condition (ICER = $133,682 USD).

CONCLUSION

Annual BC screening using MAM at age 30-74 years is effective and cost-effective in female chest-irradiated HL survivors. Although annual adjunct MRI is not cost-effective at $545 USD cost, it could become cost-effective as MRI cost is reduced, a plausible scenario with the emergent use of abbreviated MRI.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance Among BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Systematic Review

Background

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are suggested with regular breast cancer surveillance screening strategies using mammography with supplementary MRI as an adjunct tool in Western countries. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, however, the benefits of screening modalities remain controversial among different mutated genes and screening schedules.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to collect and compare the results of different cost-effectiveness analyses. A simulated model was used to predict the impact of screening strategies in the target group on cost, life-year gained, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Nine cost-effectiveness studies were included. Combined mammography and MRI strategy is cost-effective in BRCA1 mutation carriers for the middle-aged group (age 35 to 54). BRCA2 mutation carriers are less likely to benefit from adjunct MRI screening, which implies that mammography alone would be sufficient from a cost-effectiveness perspective, regardless of dense breast cancer.

Conclusions

Precision screening strategies among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers should be conducted according to the acceptable ICER, i.e., a combination of mammography and MRI for BRCA1 mutation carriers and mammography alone for BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020205471.

Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening for Women With Extremely Dense Breast Tissue

BACKGROUND

Extremely dense breast tissue is associated with increased breast cancer risk and limited sensitivity of mammography. The DENSE trial showed that additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening in women with extremely dense breasts resulted in a substantial reduction in interval cancers. The cost-effectiveness of MRI screening for these women is unknown.

METHODS

We used the MISCAN-breast microsimulation model to simulate several screening protocols containing mammography and/or MRI to estimate long-term effects and costs. The model was calibrated using results of the DENSE trial and adjusted to incorporate decreases in breast density with increasing age. Screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women ages 50-75 years. Outcomes were numbers of breast cancers, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), breast cancer deaths, and overdiagnosis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated (3% discounting), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000.

RESULTS

Calibration resulted in a conservative fit of the model regarding MRI detection. Both strategies of the DENSE trial were dominated (biennial mammography; biennial mammography plus MRI). MRI alone every 4 years was cost-effective with €15 620 per QALY. Screening every 3 years with MRI alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €37 181 per QALY. All strategies with mammography and/or a 2-year interval were dominated because other strategies resulted in more additional QALYs per additional euro. Alternating mammography and MRI every 2 years was close to the efficiency frontier.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI screening is cost-effective for women with extremely dense breasts, when applied at a 4-year interval. For a willingness to pay more than €22 000 per QALY gained, MRI at a 3-year interval is cost-effective as well.

Experiences, expectations and preferences regarding MRI and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women at familial risk

Background

Several studies have investigated MRI breast cancer screening in women at increased risk, but little is known about their preferences. In this study, experiences, expectations and preferences for MRI and mammography were evaluated among women undergoing screening with MRI and/or mammography in the randomized FaMRIsc trial.

Methods

A 17-item questionnaire was sent to 412 women in the FaMRIsc trial. Participants were aged 30–55 years, had a ≥20% cumulative lifetime risk, but no BRCA1/2 or TP53 gene variant, and were screened outside the population-based screening program. Women received annual mammography (mammography-group), or annual MRI and biennial mammography (MRI-group). We asked whether women trust the screening outcome, what they consider as (dis)advantages, which screening they prefer and what they expect of the early detection by the screening tools.

Results

255 (62%) women completed our questionnaire. The high chance of early cancer detection was the most important advantage of MRI screening (MRI-group: 95%; mammography-group: 74%), while this was also the main advantage of mammography (MRI-group: 57%; mammography-group: 72%). Most important disadvantages of MRI were the small tunnel and the contrast fluid (for 23–36%), and of mammography were its painfulness and X-radiation (for 48–60%). Almost the whole MRI-group and half the mammography-group preferred screening with MRI (either alone or with mammography).

Discussion

Most women would prefer screening with MRI. The way women think of MRI and mammography is influenced by the screening strategy they are undergoing. Our outcomes can be used for creating information brochures when MRI will be implemented for more women.

•

Women consider the small tunnel and contrast fluid important disadvantages of MRI.

•

How women think of MRI is influenced by the screening strategy they are undergoing.

•

Most women with a family history of breast cancer prefer screening with MRI.

Screening in patients with increased risk of breast cancer (part 1): pros and cons of MRI screening

Screening plays an important role in women with a high risk of breast cancer. Given this population's high incidence of breast cancer and younger age of onset compared to the general population, it is recommended that screening starts earlier. There is ample evidence that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive diagnostic tool, and American and the European guidelines both recommend annual MRI screening (with supplementary annual mammography) as the optimum screening modality. Nevertheless, the current guidelines do not totally agree about the recommendations for MRI screening in some subgroups of patients. The first part of this article on screening in women with increased risk of breast cancer reviews the literature to explain and evaluate the advantages of MRI screening compared to screening with mammography alone: increased detection of smaller cancers with less associated lymph node involvement and a reduction in the rate of interval cancers, which can have an impact on survival and mortality (with comparable effects to other preventative measures). At the same time, however, we would like to reflect on the drawbacks of MRI screening that affect its applicability.

Association of Retrospective Peer Review and Positive Predictive Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Needle Biopsies of Breast

Objective

To evaluate the association between retrospective peer review of breast magnetic resonance imaging-guided vacuum-assisted needle biopsies and positive predictive value of subsequent magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies.

Materials and Methods

In January, 2015, a weekly conference was initiated in our institution to evaluate all breast magnetic resonance imaging-guided vacuum-assisted needle biopsies performed over January 1, 2014-December 31, 2015. During this weekly conferences, breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging findings of 6 anonymized cases were discussed and then the faculty voted on whether they agree with the biopsy indication, accurate sampling and radiology-pathology correlation. We retrospectively reviewed and compared the magnetic resonance imaging indication, benign or malignant pathology rates, lesion types and the positive predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging-guided vacuum-assisted needle biopsy in the years before and after initiating this group peer review.

Results

The number of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging-guided vacuum-assisted needle biopsies before and after initiating the review were 1447 vs 1596 (p=0.0002), and 253 (17.5%) vs 203 (12.7%) (p=0.04), respectively. There was a significant decrease in the number of benign biopsies in 2015 (n=104) compared to 2014 (n=154, p=0.04). The positive predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy significantly increased after group review was implemented (Positive predictive value in 2014=%39.1 and positive predictive value in 2015=%48.8) (p=0.03), although the indications (p=0.49), history of breast cancer (p=0.14), biopsied magnetic resonance imaging lesion types (p=0.53) were not different. Less surgical excision was performed on magnetic resonance imaging-guided vacuum-assisted needle biopsy identified high-risk lesions in 2015 (p=0.25).

Conclusion

Our study showed an association between retrospective peer review of past biopsies and increased positive predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging-guided vacuum-assisted needle biopsies in our institution.

BRCA Mutation Carriers: Breast and Ovarian Cancer Screening Guidelines and Imaging Considerations

Patients who carry the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations have an underlying genetic predisposition for breast and ovarian cancers. These deleterious genetic mutations are the most common genes implicated in hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. This monograph summarizes the evidence behind current screening recommendations, reviews imaging protocols specific to this patient population, and illustrates some of the imaging nuances of breast and ovarian cancers in this clinical setting.

Examining the cost-effectiveness of baseline left ventricular function assessment among breast cancer patients undergoing anthracycline-based therapy

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus to guide which breast cancer patients require left ventricular function assessment (LVEF) prior to anthracycline therapy; the cost-effectiveness of screening this patient population has not been previously evaluated.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the Yale Nuclear Cardiology Database, including 702 patients with baseline equilibrium radionuclide angiography (ERNA) scan prior to anthracycline and/or trastuzumab therapy. We sought to examine associations between abnormal baseline LVEF and potential cardiac risk factors. Additionally, we designed a Markov model to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ERNA screening for women aged 55 with stage I-III breast cancer from a payer perspective over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

An abnormal LVEF was observed in 2% (n = 14) of patients. There were no significant associations on multivariate analysis performed on self-reported risk factors. Our analysis showed LVEF screening is cost-effective with ICER of $45,473 per QALY gained. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/ QALY, LVEF screening had an 81.9% probability of being cost-effective. Under the same threshold, screening was cost-effective for non-anthracycline cardiotoxicity risk of RR ≤ 0.58, as compared to anthracycline regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, preexisting cardiac risk factors and coronary artery disease did not predict a baseline abnormal LVEF. While the prevalence of an abnormal baseline LVEF is low in patients with breast cancer, our results suggest that cardiac screening prior to anthracycline is cost-effective.

Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening

Multiple studies in the first decade of the 21^st century have established contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening modality for women with a hereditary or familial increased risk for the development of breast cancer. In recent studies, in women with various risk profiles, the sensitivity ranges between 81% and 100%, which is approximately twice as high as the sensitivity of mammography. The specificity increases in follow-up rounds to around 97%, with positive predictive values for biopsy in the same range as for mammography. MRI preferentially detects the more aggressive/invasive types of breast cancer, but has a higher sensitivity than mammography for any type of cancer. This performance implies that in women screened with breast MRI, all other examinations must be regarded as supplemental. Mammography may yield ~5% additional cancers, mostly ductal carcinoma in situ, while slightly decreasing specificity and increasing the costs. Ultrasound has no supplemental value when MRI is used. Evidence is mounting that in other groups of women the performance of MRI is likewise superior to more conventional screening techniques. Particularly in women with a personal history of breast cancer, the gain seems to be high, but also in women with a biopsy history of lobular carcinoma in situ and even women at average risk, similar results are reported. Initial outcome studies show that breast MRI detects cancer earlier, which induces a stage-shift increasing the survival benefit of screening. Cost-effectiveness is still an issue, particularly for women at lower risk. Since costs of the MRI scan itself are a driving factor, efforts to reduce these costs are essential. The use of abbreviated MRI protocols may enable more widespread use of breast MRI for screening. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:377-390.

Measuring the value of MRI: Comparative effectiveness & outcomes research

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) now provides diagnostic assessment for numerous clinical indications, including lesion detection, characterization, functional assessment, and response to treatment. To maximize the potential to improve health through the use of MRI, it is critical to investigate the impact of MRI on outcomes, and to compare the effectiveness of MRI with existing standard diagnostic approaches. Outcomes of MRI can include survival but also intermediate steps such as potential reduction in unnecessary therapy, shorter time to the appropriate therapy, or shorter periods of hospital admission. To understand the effectiveness of an imaging test's sensitivity and specificity, the results' consequences are weighed, reflecting the disease type, severity, and treatment effects. In some instances, other modalities may be faster, more readily available, or less costly than MRI but additional disease-related information or better accuracy may translate to greater population level benefit. For health policy decisions and clinical guidelines, studies of comparative outcomes can lend depth to the strength of the evidence, the specific benefits vs. harms of using one test over another, and the most effective use of the test in terms of target population. Cost effectiveness then allows for a direct comparison of approaches in terms of the cost for the projected gain in life expectancy and/or quality adjusted life expectancy. Expanding the literature on improved efficiency, accessibility, clinical effectiveness, and cost effectiveness will support the directive for better quality and value in healthcare. Level of Evidence 5 Technical Efficacy Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.

American College of Radiology Accreditation, Performance Metrics, Reimbursement, and Economic Considerations in Breast MR Imaging

Accreditation through the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accreditation Program is necessary to qualify for reimbursement from Medicare and many private insurers and provides facilities with peer review on image acquisition and clinical quality. Adherence to ACR quality control and technical practice parameter guidelines for breast MR imaging and performance of a medical outcomes audit program will maintain high-quality imaging and facilitate accreditation. Economic factors likely to influence the practice of breast MR imaging include cost-effectiveness, competition with lower-cost breast-imaging modalities, and price transparency, all of which may lower the cost of MR imaging and allow for greater utilization.

Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening - a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions

BACKGROUND

The economic evaluation of stratified breast cancer screening gains momentum, but produces also very diverse results. Systematic reviews so far focused on modeling techniques and epidemiologic assumptions. However, cost and utility parameters received only little attention. This systematic review assesses simulation models for stratified breast cancer screening based on their cost and utility parameters in each phase of breast cancer screening and care.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to compare economic evaluations with simulation models of personalized breast cancer screening. Study quality was assessed using reporting guidelines. Cost and utility inputs were extracted, standardized and structured using a care delivery framework. Studies were then clustered according to their study aim and parameters were compared within the clusters.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were identified within three study clusters. Reporting quality was very diverse in all three clusters. Only two studies in cluster 1, four studies in cluster 2 and one study in cluster 3 scored high in the quality appraisal. In addition to the quality appraisal, this review assessed if the simulation models were consistent in integrating all relevant phases of care, if utility parameters were consistent and methodological sound and if cost were compatible and consistent in the actual parameters used for screening, diagnostic work up and treatment. Of 18 studies, only three studies did not show signs of potential bias.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that a closer look into the cost and utility parameter can help to identify potential bias. Future simulation models should focus on integrating all relevant phases of care, using methodologically sound utility parameters and avoiding inconsistent cost parameters.

Surveillance of Women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation by Using Biannual Automated Breast US, MR Imaging, and Mammography

Purpose To evaluate a multimodal surveillance regimen including yearly full-field digital (FFD) mammography, dynamic contrast agent-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and biannual automated breast (AB) ultrasonography (US) in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Materials and Methods This prospective multicenter trial enrolled 296 carriers of the BRCA mutation (153 BRCA1 and 128 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 women with first-degree untested relatives) between September 2010 and November 2012, with follow-up until November 2015. Participants underwent 2 years of intensified surveillance including biannual AB US, and routine yearly DCE MR imaging and FFD mammography. The surveillance performance for each modality and possible combinations were determined. Results Breast cancer was screening-detected in 16 women (age range, 33-58 years). Three interval cancers were detected by self-examination, all in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation under age 43 years. One cancer was detected in a carrier of the BRCA1 mutation with a palpable abnormality in the contralateral breast. One incidental breast cancer was detected in a prophylactic mastectomy specimen. Respectively, sensitivity of DCE MR imaging, FFD mammography, and AB US was 68.1% (14 of 21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 42.9%, 85.8%), 37.2% (eight of 21; 95% CI: 19.8%, 58.7%), and 32.1% (seven of 21; 95% CI: 16.1%, 53.8%); specificity was 95.0% (643 of 682; 95% CI: 92.7%, 96.5%), 98.1% (638 of 652; 95% CI: 96.7%, 98.9%), and 95.1% (1030 of 1088; 95% CI: 93.5%, 96.3%); cancer detection rate was 2.0% (14 of 702), 1.2% (eight of 671), and 1.0% (seven of 711) per 100 women-years; and positive predictive value was 25.2% (14 of 54), 33.7% (nine of 23), and 9.5% (seven of 68). DCE MR imaging and FFD mammography combined yielded the highest sensitivity of 76.3% (16 of 21; 95% CI: 53.8%, 89.9%) and specificity of 93.6% (643 of 691; 95% CI: 91.3%, 95.3%). AB US did not depict additional cancers. FFD mammography yielded no additional cancers in women younger than 43 years, the mean age at diagnosis. In carriers of the BRCA2 mutation, sensitivity of FFD mammography with DCE MR imaging surveillance was 90.9% (10 of 11; 95% CI: 72.7%, 100%) and 60.0% (six of 10; 95% CI: 30.0%, 90.0%) in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation because of the high interval cancer rate in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation. Conclusion AB US may not be of added value to yearly FFD mammography and DCE MR imaging surveillance of carriers of the BRCA mutation. Study results suggest that carriers of the BRCA mutation younger than 40 years may not benefit from FFD mammography surveillance in addition to DCE MR imaging. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Economic Evaluation Alongside a Clinical Trial of Telephone Versus In-Person Genetic Counseling for BRCA1/2 Mutations in Geographically Underserved Areas

PURPOSE

BRCA1/2 counseling and mutation testing is recommended for high-risk women, but geographic barriers exist, and no data on the costs and yields of diverse delivery approaches are available.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation with a randomized clinical trial comparing telephone versus in-person counseling at 14 locations (nine geographically remote). Costs included fixed overhead, variable staff, and patient time costs; research costs were excluded. Outcomes included average per-person costs for pretest counseling; mutations detected; and overall counseling, testing, and disclosure. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of uncertainty.

RESULTS

In-person counseling was more costly per person counseled than was telephone counseling ($270 [range, $180 to $400] v $120 [range, $80 to $200], respectively). Counselors averaged 285 miles round-trip to deliver in-person counseling to the participants (three participants per session). There were no differences by arm in mutation detection rates (approximately 10%); therefore, telephone counseling was less costly per positive mutation detected than was in-person counseling ($37,160 [range, $36,080 to$38,920] v $40,330 [range, $38,010 to $43,870]). In-person counseling would only be less costly than telephone counseling if the most favorable assumptions were applied to in personc ounseling and the least favorable assumptions were applied to telephone counseling.

CONCLUSION

In geographically underserved areas, telephone counseling is less costly than in-person counseling.

The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced screening breast MRI in populations at increased risk for breast cancer

Breast MRI is more sensitive than mammography in detecting breast cancer. However, MRI as a screening tool is limited to high-risk patients due to cost, low specificity and insufficient evidence for its use in intermediate-risk populations. Nonetheless, in the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of breast-screening MRI in the community setting. In this review, we set to describe the current literature on the use of screening MRI in high- and intermediate-risk populations. We will also describe novel applications of breast MRI including abbreviated breast MRI protocols, background parenchymal enhancement and diffusion-weighted imaging.

Postmortem validation of breast density using dual-energy mammography

PURPOSE

Mammographic density has been shown to be an indicator of breast cancer risk and also reduces the sensitivity of screening mammography. Currently, there is no accepted standard for measuring breast density. Dual energy mammography has been proposed as a technique for accurate measurement of breast density. The purpose of this study is to validate its accuracy in postmortem breasts and compare it with other existing techniques.

METHODS

Forty postmortem breasts were imaged using a dual energy mammography system. Glandular and adipose equivalent phantoms of uniform thickness were used to calibrate a dual energy basis decomposition algorithm. Dual energy decomposition was applied after scatter correction to calculate breast density. Breast density was also estimated using radiologist reader assessment, standard histogram thresholding and a fuzzy C-mean algorithm. Chemical analysis was used as the reference standard to assess the accuracy of different techniques to measure breast composition.

RESULTS

Breast density measurements using radiologist reader assessment, standard histogram thresholding, fuzzy C-mean algorithm, and dual energy were in good agreement with the measured fibroglandular volume fraction using chemical analysis. The standard error estimates using radiologist reader assessment, standard histogram thresholding, fuzzy C-mean, and dual energy were 9.9%, 8.6%, 7.2%, and 4.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that dual energy mammography can be used to accurately measure breast density. The variability in breast density estimation using dual energy mammography was lower than reader assessment rankings, standard histogram thresholding, and fuzzy C-mean algorithm. Improved quantification of breast density is expected to further enhance its utility as a risk factor for breast cancer.

MRI screening for breast cancer in women at high risk; is the Australian breast MRI screening access program addressing the needs of women at high risk of breast cancer?

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening of women under 50 years old at high familial risk of breast cancer was given interim funding by Medicare in 2009 on the basis that a review would be undertaken. An updated literature review has been undertaken by the Medical Services Advisory Committee but there has been no assessment of the quality of the screening or other screening outcomes. This review examines the evidence basis of breast MRI screening and how this fits within an Australian context with the purpose of informing future modifications to the provision of Medicare-funded breast MRI screening in Australia. Issues discussed will include selection of high-risk women, the options for MRI screening frequency and measuring the outcomes of screening.

Breast cancer screening: an evidence-based update

Routine screening mammography is recommended by most groups issuing breast cancer screening guidelines, especially for women 50 years of age and older. However, both the potential benefits and risks of screening should be discussed with individual patients to allow for shared decision making regarding their participation in screening, age of commencement and conclusion, and interval of mammography screening.

Combined Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening, Using Retina Photographs and Tear Fluid Proteomics Biomarkers

Background. It is estimated that 347 million people suffer from diabetes mellitus (DM), and almost 5 million are blind due to diabetic retinopathy (DR). The progression of DR can be slowed down with early diagnosis and treatment. Therefore our aim was to develop a novel automated method for DR screening. Methods. 52 patients with diabetes mellitus were enrolled into the project. Of all patients, 39 had signs of DR. Digital retina images and tear fluid samples were taken from each eye. The results from the tear fluid proteomics analysis and from digital microaneurysm (MA) detection on fundus images were used as the input of a machine learning system. Results. MA detection method alone resulted in 0.84 sensitivity and 0.81 specificity. Using the proteomics data for analysis 0.87 sensitivity and 0.68 specificity values were achieved. The combined data analysis integrated the features of the proteomics data along with the number of detected MAs in the associated image and achieved sensitivity/specificity values of 0.93/0.78. Conclusions. As the two different types of data represent independent and complementary information on the outcome, the combined model resulted in a reliable screening method that is comparable to the requirements of DR screening programs applied in clinical routine.

Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

To reduce mortality, women with a family history of breast cancer are often screened with mammography before age 50 years. Additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves sensitivity and is cost-effective for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. However, for women with a family history without a proven mutation, cost-effectiveness is unclear.

METHODS

We evaluated data of the largest prospective MRI screening study (MRISC). Between 1999 and 2007, 1597 women (8370 woman-years at risk) aged 25 to 70 years with an estimated cumulative lifetime risk of 15% to 50% for breast cancer were screened with clinical breast examination every 6 months and with annual mammography and MRI. We calculated the cost per detected and treated breast cancer. After incorporating MRISC data into a microsimulation screening analysis model (MISCAN), different schemes were evaluated, and cost per life-year gained (LYG) was estimated in comparison with the Dutch nationwide breast cancer screening program (biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years). All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Forty-seven breast cancers (9 ductal carcinoma in situ) were detected. Screening with additional MRI costs $123 672 (€93 639) per detected breast cancer. In increasing age-cohorts, costs per detected and treated breast cancer decreased, but, unexpectedly, the percentage of MRI-only detected cancers increased. Screening under the MRISC-scheme from age 35 to 50 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 25% at $134 932 (€102 164) per LYG (3.5% discounting) compared with 17% mortality reduction at $54 665 (€41 390) per LYG with mammography only.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening with MRI may improve survival for women with familial risk for breast cancer but is expensive, especially in the youngest age categories.

Cost-effectiveness of MRI for breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Background

Women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are at high risk of developing breast cancer and, in British Columbia, Canada, are offered screening with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography to facilitate early detection. MRI is more sensitive than mammography but is more costly and produces more false positive results. The purpose of this study was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of MRI screening for breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in a Canadian setting.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model of annual MRI and mammography screening for BRCA1/2 carriers, using local data and published values. We calculated cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY), and conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of annual mammography plus MRI screening, compared to annual mammography alone, was $50,900/QALY. After incorporating parameter uncertainty, MRI screening is expected to be a cost-effective option 86% of the time at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY, and 53% of the time at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY. The model is highly sensitive to the cost of MRI; as the cost is increased from $200 to $700 per scan, the ICER ranges from $37,100/QALY to $133,000/QALY.

Conclusions

The cost-effectiveness of using MRI and mammography in combination to screen for breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is finely balanced. The sensitivity of the results to the cost of the MRI screen itself warrants consideration: in jurisdictions with higher MRI costs, screening may not be a cost-effective use of resources, but improving the efficiency of MRI screening will also improve cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers

BACKGROUND

Current clinical guidelines recommend earlier, more intensive breast cancer screening with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography for women with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations. Unspecified details of screening schedules are a challenge for implementing guidelines.

METHODS

A Markov Monte Carlo computer model was used to simulate screening in asymptomatic women who were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Three dual-modality strategies were compared with digital mammography (DM) alone: 1) DM and MRI alternating at 6-month intervals beginning at age 25 years (Alt25), 2) annual MRI beginning at age 25 years with alternating DM added at age 30 years (MRI25/Alt30), and 3) DM and MRI alternating at 6-month intervals beginning at age 30 years (Alt30). Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs (in 2010 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness (dollars per QALY gained). Additional outcomes included potential harms of screening, and lifetime costs stratified into component categories (screening and diagnosis, treatment, mortality, and patient time costs).

RESULTS

All 3 dual-modality screening strategies increased QALYs and costs. Alt30 screening had the lowest incremental costs per additional QALY gained (BRCA1, $74,200 per QALY; BRCA2, $215,700 per QALY). False-positive test results increased substantially with dual-modality screening and occurred more frequently in BRCA2 carriers. Downstream savings in both breast cancer treatment and mortality costs were outweighed by increases in up-front screening and diagnosis costs. The results were influenced most by estimates of breast cancer risk and MRI costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternating MRI and DM screening at 6-month intervals beginning at age 30 years was identified as a clinically effective approach to applying current guidelines, and was more cost-effective in BRCA1 gene mutation carriers compared with BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Breast density as indicator for the use of mammography or MRI to screen women with familial risk for breast cancer (FaMRIsc): a multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To reduce mortality, women with a family history of breast cancer often start mammography screening at a younger age than the general population. Breast density is high in over 50% of women younger than 50 years. With high breast density, breast cancer incidence increases, but sensitivity of mammography decreases. Therefore, mammography might not be the optimal method for breast cancer screening in young women. Adding MRI increases sensitivity, but also the risk of false-positive results. The limitation of all previous MRI screening studies is that they do not contain a comparison group; all participants received both MRI and mammography. Therefore, we cannot empirically assess in which stage tumours would have been detected by either test.The aim of the Familial MRI Screening Study (FaMRIsc) is to compare the efficacy of MRI screening to mammography for women with a familial risk. Furthermore, we will assess the influence of breast density.

METHODS/DESIGN

This Dutch multicentre, randomized controlled trial, with balanced randomisation (1:1) has a parallel grouped design. Women with a cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer due to their family history of ≥20%, aged 30-55 years are eligible. Identified BRCA1/2 mutation carriers or women with 50% risk of carrying a mutation are excluded. Group 1 receives yearly mammography and clinical breast examination (n = 1000), and group 2 yearly MRI and clinical breast examination, and mammography biennially (n = 1000).Primary endpoints are the number and stage of the detected breast cancers in each arm. Secondary endpoints are the number of false-positive results in both screening arms. Furthermore, sensitivity and positive predictive value of both screening strategies will be assessed. Cost-effectiveness of both strategies will be assessed. Analyses will also be performed with mammographic density as stratification factor.

DISCUSSION

Personalized breast cancer screening might optimize mortality reduction with less over diagnosis. Breast density may be a key discriminator for selecting the optimal screening strategy for women < 55 years with familial breast cancer risk; mammography or MRI. These issues are addressed in the FaMRIsc study including high risk women due to a familial predisposition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherland Trial Register NTR2789.

State-Transition Modeling

State-transition modeling (STM) is an intuitive, flexible, and transparent approach of computer-based decision-analytic modeling, including both Markov model cohort simulation as well as individual-based (first-order Monte Carlo) microsimulation. Conceptualizing a decision problem in terms of a set of (health) states and transitions among these states, STM is one of the most widespread modeling techniques in clinical decision analysis, health technology assessment, and health-economic evaluation. STMs have been used in many different populations and diseases, and their applications range from personalized health care strategies to public health programs. Most frequently, state-transition models are used in the evaluation of risk factor interventions, screening, diagnostic procedures, treatment strategies, and disease management programs.

State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--3

State-transition modeling is an intuitive, flexible, and transparent approach of computer-based decision-analytic modeling including both Markov model cohort simulation and individual-based (first-order Monte Carlo) microsimulation. Conceptualizing a decision problem in terms of a set of (health) states and transitions among these states, state-transition modeling is one of the most widespread modeling techniques in clinical decision analysis, health technology assessment, and health-economic evaluation. State-transition models have been used in many different populations and diseases, and their applications range from personalized health care strategies to public health programs. Most frequently, state-transition models are used in the evaluation of risk factor interventions, screening, diagnostic procedures, treatment strategies, and disease management programs. The goal of this article was to provide consensus-based guidelines for the application of state-transition models in the context of health care. We structured the best practice recommendations in the following sections: choice of model type (cohort vs. individual-level model), model structure, model parameters, analysis, reporting, and communication. In each of these sections, we give a brief description, address the issues that are of particular relevance to the application of state-transition models, give specific examples from the literature, and provide best practice recommendations for state-transition modeling. These recommendations are directed both to modelers and to users of modeling results such as clinicians, clinical guideline developers, manufacturers, or policymakers.

Differences in natural history between breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and effects of MRI screening-MRISC, MARIBS, and Canadian studies combined

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that BRCA1/2 mutation carriers undergo breast cancer screening using MRI because of their very high cancer risk and the high sensitivity of MRI in detecting invasive cancers. Clinical observations suggest important differences in the natural history between breast cancers due to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, potentially requiring different screening guidelines.

METHODS

Three studies of mutation carriers using annual MRI and mammography were analyzed. Separate natural history models for BRCA1 and BRCA2 were calibrated to the results of these studies and used to predict the impact of various screening protocols on detection characteristics and mortality.

RESULTS

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (N = 1,275) participated in the studies and 124 cancers (99 invasive) were diagnosed. Cancers detected in BRCA2 mutation carriers were smaller [80% ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or ≤10 mm vs. 49% for BRCA1, P < 0.001]. Below the age of 40, one (invasive) cancer of the 25 screen-detected cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers was detected by mammography alone, compared with seven (three invasive) of 11 screen-detected cancers in BRCA2 (P < 0.0001). In the model, the preclinical period during which cancer is screen-detectable was 1 to 4 years for BRCA1 and 2 to 7 years for BRCA2. The model predicted breast cancer mortality reductions of 42% to 47% for mammography, 48% to 61% for MRI, and 50% to 62% for combined screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Our studies suggest substantial mortality benefits in using MRI to screen BRCA1/2 mutation carriers aged 25 to 60 years but show important clinical differences in natural history.

IMPACT

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers may benefit from different screening protocols, for example, below the age of 40.

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) ± ultrasonography (US) with the diagnostic accuracy of MX ± US alone.

METHODS

One hundred ten consenting women with 148 breast lesions (84 malignant, 64 benign) underwent two-view dual-energy CEDM in addition to MX and US using a specially modified digital mammography system (Senographe DS, GE Healthcare). Reference standard was histology for 138 lesions and follow-up for 12 lesions. Six radiologists from 4 institutions interpreted the images using high-resolution softcopy workstations. Confidence of presence (5-point scale), probability of cancer (7-point scale), and BI-RADS scores were evaluated for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve areas were estimated for each reader and overall. Visibility of findings on MX ± CEDM and MX ± US was evaluated with a Likert scale.

RESULTS

The average per-lesion sensitivity across all readers was significantly higher for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US (0.78 vs. 0.71 using BIRADS, p = 0.006). All readers improved their clinical performance and the average area under the ROC curve was significantly superior for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US ((0.87 vs 0.83, p = 0.045). Finding visibility was similar or better on MX ± CEDM than MX ± US in 80% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to MX ± US improves diagnostic accuracy compared to MX ± US alone. Addition of iodinated contrast agent to MX facilitates the visualization of breast lesions.

[Breast cancer screening in high risk populations]

We aim to define which patients make up the populations with high and intermediate risk of developing breast cancer, to review the studies of screening with magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography in high risk patients (describing the imaging characteristics of the cancers in this group), to review the studies of screening with magnetic resonance imaging in patients with intermediate risk, and to update the guidelines for screening in patients with high or intermediate risk (based on the recent recommendations of the main scientific societies/American and European guidelines).

Using radiation risk models in cancer screening simulations: important assumptions and effects on outcome projections

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of incorporating radiation risk into microsimulation (first-order Monte Carlo) models for breast and lung cancer screening to illustrate effects of including radiation risk on patient outcome projections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All data used in this study were derived from publicly available or deidentified human subject data. Institutional review board approval was not required. The challenges of incorporating radiation risk into simulation models are illustrated with two cancer screening models (Breast Cancer Model and Lung Cancer Policy Model) adapted to include radiation exposure effects from mammography and chest computed tomography (CT), respectively. The primary outcome projected by the breast model was life expectancy (LE) for BRCA1 mutation carriers. Digital mammographic screening beginning at ages 25, 30, 35, and 40 years was evaluated in the context of screenings with false-positive results and radiation exposure effects. The primary outcome of the lung model was lung cancer-specific mortality reduction due to annual screening, comparing two diagnostic CT protocols for lung nodule evaluation. The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm was used to estimate the mean values of the results with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).

RESULTS

Without radiation exposure effects, the breast model indicated that annual digital mammography starting at age 25 years maximized LE (72.03 years; 95% UI: 72.01 years, 72.05 years) and had the highest number of screenings with false-positive results (2.0 per woman). When radiation effects were included, annual digital mammography beginning at age 30 years maximized LE (71.90 years; 95% UI: 71.87 years, 71.94 years) with a lower number of screenings with false-positive results (1.4 per woman). For annual chest CT screening of 50-year-old females with no follow-up for nodules smaller than 4 mm in diameter, the lung model predicted lung cancer-specific mortality reduction of 21.50% (95% UI: 20.90%, 22.10%) without radiation risk and 17.75% (95% UI: 16.97%, 18.41%) with radiation risk.

CONCLUSION

Because including radiation exposure risk can influence long-term projections from simulation models, it is important to include these risks when conducting modeling-based assessments of diagnostic imaging.

Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Although breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for breast cancer-susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, there is no current consensus on the optimal screening regimen.

METHODS

The authors used a computer simulation model to compare 6 annual screening strategies (film mammography [FM], digital mammography [DM], FM and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or DM and MRI contemporaneously, and alternating FM/MRI or DM/MRI at 6-month intervals) beginning at ages 25 years, 30 years, 35 years, and 40 years, and 2 strategies of annual MRI with delayed alternating DM/FM versus clinical surveillance alone. Strategies were evaluated without and with mammography-induced breast cancer risk using 2 models of excess relative risk. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, publicly available databases, and calibration.

RESULTS

Without radiation risk effects, alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years provided the highest life expectancy (BRCA1, 72.52 years, BRCA2, 77.63 years). When radiation risk was included, a small proportion of diagnosed cancers was attributable to radiation exposure (BRCA1, <2%; BRCA2, <4%). With radiation risk, alternating DM/MRI at age 25 years or annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years was the most effective, depending on the radiation risk model used. Alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years also produced the highest number of false-positive screens per woman (BRCA1, 4.5 BRCA2, 8.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years is probably the most effective screening strategy in BRCA mutation carriers. Screening benefits, associated risks, and personal acceptance of false-positive results should be considered in choosing the optimal screening strategy for individual women.

Can imaging help improve the survival of cancer patients?

Survival, quality-adjusted survival and mortality are important and related measures of outcome in cancer care. The impact of imaging on these outcomes can be ascertained from observational and modelling studies, frequently performed to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Examples where incorporation of imaging into cancer care can be shown to improve survival include breast cancer screening, characterization of solitary pulmonary nodules, staging of non-small cell lung cancer, treatment response assessment in Hodgkin lymphoma, postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer and selective internal radiation therapy of colorectal liver metastases. Modelling suggests the greatest opportunities for improvements in survival through imaging detection of cancer may lie in the investigation of mildly symptomatic patients. For applications where the improvements in survival are more modest, use of imaging frequently has additional demonstrable benefits including reductions in health care expenditure.

Computer disease simulation models: integrating evidence for health policy

Computer disease simulation models are increasingly being used to evaluate and inform health care decisions across medical disciplines. The aim of researchers who develop these models is to integrate and synthesize short-term outcomes and results from multiple sources to predict the long-term clinical outcomes and costs of different health care strategies. Policy makers, in turn, can use the predictions generated by disease models together with other evidence to make decisions related to health care practices and resource utilization. Models are particularly useful when the existing evidence does not yield obvious answers or does not provide answers to the questions of greatest interest, such as questions about the relative cost-effectiveness of different practices. This review focuses on models used to inform decisions about imaging technology, discussing the role of disease models for health policy development and providing a foundation for understanding the basic principles of disease modeling. This manuscript draws from the collective computed tomographic colonography modeling experience, reviewing 10 published investigations of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography relative to colonoscopy. The discussion focuses on implications of different modeling assumptions and difficulties that may be encountered when evaluating the quality of models. This underscores the importance of forging stronger collaborations between researchers who develop disease models and radiologists, to ensure that policy-level models accurately represent the experience of everyday clinical practices.

Cost-effectiveness of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy versus routine surveillance in patients with unilateral breast cancer

PURPOSE

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates in women with unilateral breast cancer are increasing despite controversy regarding survival advantage. Current scrutiny of the medical costs led us to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CPM versus routine surveillance as an alternative contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk management strategy.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, we simulated patients with breast cancer from mastectomy to death. Model parameters were gathered from published literature or national databases. Base-case analysis focused on patients with average-risk breast cancer, 45 years of age at treatment. Outcomes were valued in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients' age, risk level of breast cancer, and quality of life (QOL) were varied to assess their impact on results.

RESULTS

Mean costs of treatment for women age 45 years are comparable: $36,594 for the CPM and $35,182 for surveillance. CPM provides 21.22 mean QALYs compared with 20.93 for surveillance, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4,869/QALY gained for CPM. To prevent one CBC, six CPMs would be needed. CPM is no longer cost-effective for patients older than 70 years (ICER $62,750/QALY). For BRCA-positive patients, CPM is clearly cost-effective, providing more QALYs while being less costly. In non-BRCA patients, cost-effectiveness of CPM is highly dependent on assumptions regarding QOL for CPM versus surveillance strategy.

CONCLUSION

CPM is cost-effective compared with surveillance for patients with breast cancer who are younger than 70 years. Results are sensitive to BRCA-positive status and assumptions of QOL differences between CPM and surveillance patients. This highlights the importance of tailoring treatment for individual patients.

Comparison of costs and benefits of breast cancer screening with mammography, ultrasonography, and MRI

Screening mammography performed annually on all women beginning at age 40 years has reduced breast cancer deaths by 30% to 50%. The cost per year of life saved is well within the range for other commonly accepted medical interventions. Various studies have estimated that reduction in treatment costs through early screening detection may be 30% to 100% or more of the cost of screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening is also cost-effective for very high-risk women, such as BRCA carriers, and others at 20% or greater lifetime risk. Further studies are needed to determine whether MRI is cost-effective for those at moderately high (15%-20%) lifetime risk. Future technical advances could make MRI more cost-effective than it is today. Automated whole-breast ultrasonography will probably prove cost-effective as a supplement to mammography for women with dense breasts.