Search

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.

Background: Because the incidence of breast cancer increases between 45 and 50years of age, a reconsideration is required of the current starting age (typically 50years) for routine mammography. Our aim was to evaluate the quantitative benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of lowering the starting age of breast cancer screening in the Dutch general population., Methods: Economic modelling with a lifelong perspective compared biennial screening for women aged 48-74years and for women aged 46-74years with the current Dutch screening programme, which screen women between the ages of 50 and 74years. Tumour deaths prevented, years of life saved (YOLS), false-positive rates, radiation-induced tumours, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated., Results: Starting the screening at 48 instead of 50 years of age led to increases in: the number of small tumours detected (4.0%), tumour deaths prevented (5.6%), false positives (9.2%), YOLS (5.6%), radiation-induced tumours (14.7%), and costs (4.1%). Starting the screening at 46 instead of 48 years of age increased the number of small tumours detected (3.3%), tumour deaths prevented (4.2%), false positives (8.8%), YOLS (3.7%), radiation-induced tumours (15.2%), and costs (4.0%). The ICER was €5600/YOLS for the 48-74 scenario and €5600/YOLS for the 46-74 scenario., Conclusions: Women could benefit from lowering the starting age of screening as more breast cancer deaths would be averted. Starting regular breast cancer screening earlier is also cost-effective. As the number of additional expected harms is relatively small in both the scenarios examined, and the difference in ICERs is not large, introducing two additional screening rounds is justifiable., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)