Search

Purpose: Breast cancer is the leading type of cancer diagnosed and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Ghana. Mammography and ultrasound have proven benefits in the early detection of breast cancer. This study evaluates mammography, breast ultrasound, and radiology work force availability throughout Ghana., Methods: A survey was administered to all hospitals in Ghana from November 2020 to October 2021. Mammography, breast ultrasound services, and the number of radiologists were assessed. For mammography, the number performed per month, cost incurred by the patient, where images were read, and how long it took to receive reports were also assessed. Health Facilities Regulatory Authority records on diagnostic centers were obtained to identify additional in-country breast imaging services., Results: Three hundred and twenty-eight of 346 hospitals participated in the survey (95%). Only 21 hospitals reported on-site mammography. One hospital reported performing >100 mammographies per month. The average cost to the patient ranged from 100 to 500 Cedis ($17-87 US dollars [USD]), although three hospitals performed mammography at no cost. An additional 10 mammography machines were identified at diagnostic centers throughout the country, with 41.3% of the female population living within 1 hour of mammography services. There were 135 hospital-based breast ultrasound services identified with 69.5% of the female population living within 1 hour of these services. There were an additional 190 ultrasound machines at diagnostic centers. There were 96 in-country radiologists identified., Conclusion: Although there is limited availability and utilization of mammography in Ghana, there is more readily available ultrasonography. A focus on increasing breast cancer early diagnostic capabilities with breast ultrasound should be prioritized in addition to further expansion of the radiology workforce.

Introduction: While digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to enhance cancer detection and reduce recall rates (RR), its integration into BreastScreen Australia for screening has been limited, in part due to perceived cost implications. This study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of digital mammography (DM) compared with synthesized mammography and DBT (SM + DBT) in a first round screening context for short-term outcomes., Methods: Clients recalled for nonspecific density (NSD) as a single lesion by both readers at the Northern Sydney Central Coast BreastScreen service in 2019 were included. Prior images were excluded to simulate first-round screening. Eleven radiologists read DM and synthesized mammography with DBT (SM + DBT) images 4 weeks apart. Recall rates (RR), reading time, and diagnostic parameters were measured, and costs for screen reading and assessment were calculated., Result: Among 65 clients studied, 13 were diagnosed with cancer, with concordant cancer recalls. SM + DBT reduced recall rates (RR), increased reading time, maintained cancer detection sensitivity, and significantly improved other diagnostic parameters, particularly false positive rates. Benign biopsy recalls remained equivalent. While SM + DBT screen reading cost was significantly higher than DM (DM AU$890 ± 186 vs SM + DBT AU$1279 ± 265; P < 0.001), the assessment cost (DM AU$29,504 ± 9427 vs SM + DBT AU$18,021 ± 5606; P < 0.001), and combined screen reading and assessment costs were significantly lower (DM AU$30,394 ± 9508 vs SM + DBT AU$19,300 ± 5721; P = 0.001). SM + DBT screen reading and assessment of 65 patients resulted in noteworthy cost savings (AU$11,094), equivalent to assessing 12 additional clients., Conclusion: In first round screening, DBT yields significant cost savings by effectively reducing unnecessary recalls to assessment while maintaining diagnostic efficacy., (© 2024 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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.

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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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.

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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

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., Competing Interests: N.K. reported funding from the Research Council of Norway and LINK Medical Research (grant numbers 276146 and 304034) during the conduct of the study, and personal fees for speaking from Thermo Fisher Scientific. X.X. reported receiving research support through Yale University from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures, and grants from the American Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. S.H.B. reported receiving research grants from the National Institute of Health, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Donaghue Foundation and the American Cancer Society during the conduct of this study. K.A.K. reported receiving research support through Yale University from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and maintain hospital performance measures during the conduct of the study. S.T.L. is the founder and co-owner of NowPow, LLC and reports receiving royalty payments from UpToDate. I.B.R. reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences during the conduct of the study and personal fees from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, outside the submitted work. C.P.G. reported receiving research grants from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-(funded by Pfizer/Astra-Zeneca), funding from Johnson & Johnson to assist with developing new approaches to sharing clinical trial data (through the Yale Open Data Access Project), and funding from Flatiron Inc. for travel/speaking, outside the submitted work. J.B.L. declares no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

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., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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., (© 2020 UICC.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rapidly increasing U.S. healthcare spending has been a hot topic over the past few decades. Imaging studies, including screening mammography, are possible targets for cost savings. Radiologists need to be more proactive and take charge by actively participating in the cost reduction conversation, improving the quality of care, providing patients with accurate cost estimates and educating patients along with clinicians on the value we have provided and can provide in the future., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue.

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.

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., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Chinese American women have lower rates of mammography screening compared with non-Hispanic White women. Although the extent of perceived barriers, as conceptualized by the Health Belief Model, have been shown to distinguish between currently non-adherent Chinese American women who have ever and never had a mammogram, it is less clear which types of perceived barriers differentiate them. One hundred twenty-eight Chinese American women in the New York metropolitan area who had not had a mammogram in the past year completed baseline assessments for a mammography framing intervention study. Demographics, medical access variables, and perceived barriers to mammography (lack of access, lack of need for screening, and modesty) were used to predict mammography history (ever versus never screened). Fifty-five women (43%) reported having been screened at least once. A sequential logistic regression showed that English speaking ability and having health insurance significantly predicted mammography history. However, these control variables became non-significant when the three barrier factors were included in the final model. Women who reported a greater lack of access ( OR  = 0.36, p  < .05) and greater lack of need ( OR  = 0.27, p  < .01) were less likely to be ever screeners. Unexpectedly, women who reported greater modesty were more likely to be ever screeners ( OR  = 4.78, p  < .001). The results suggest that interventions for Chinese American women should identify and target specific perceived barriers with consideration of previous adherence.

Objective: To determine the government and out-of-pocket community costs (out-of-hospital medical services and prescription medicines) associated with screen-detected and community-detected cancers (i.e. cancers detected outside of Australia's organised screening program [BreastScreen])., Methods: We analyse administrative data on government-subsidised medical services and prescription medicines for 568 Victorian women diagnosed with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Using multivariable regression analysis, we estimate the government and out-of-pocket community costs incurred in the three years after diagnosis for screen-detected cancers and community-detected cancers. Additionally, we estimate the government costs associated with diagnosis within and outside of BreastScreen., Results: Average government costs for breast cancer diagnosis were similar within and outside of BreastScreen [$808 (lower limit 676; upper limit 940) vs $837 (95%CI 671; 1,003) respectively]; however, women with community-detected cancers incurred an additional $254 (95%CI 175; 332) out-of-pocket. Controlling for differences in known cancer characteristics, compared to screen-detected cancers, community-detected breast cancers were associated with an additional $2,622 (95%CI 644; 4,776) in government expenditure in the three years following diagnosis. Adverse cancer characteristics that were more prevalent in community-detected cancers (high grade, lymph node involvement, HER2 positive receptor status) were associated with increased government and out-of-pocket costs., Conclusions: Community-detected breast cancers were associated with increased government and out-of-pocket costs. Implications for public health: These costs should be considered when evaluating current and alternative breast cancer screening strategies., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Purpose: To examine the potential cost-savings of stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (SVAB) over open surgical biopsy (OSB) in diagnosis of nonpalpable lesions on mammography and to estimate the cost-saving effect on lesions at different levels of malignant probability., Methods: This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. We retrospectively reviewed 276 (33.8 %) SVAB and 541 (66.2 %) OSB medical records at a medical center. Direct costs included patients' self-paid and national health insurance claim charges. Indirect costs were calculated using sick days, average salary, and age-adjusted employment rate. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. Lesion classification was determined by the assessment categories of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 4th or 5th editions., Results: SVAB decreased the direct cost by $90.3 (10.1 %) per diagnosis. The indirect cost was decreased by $560.2 (96.0 %). Overall, SVAB saved 43.9 % of resource utilization for each biopsy. Taking the cost of the subsequent malignant surgery into account, from the healthcare providers' perspective, SVAB was cost-effective if a lesion had less than 19 % likelihood of malignancy. From the societal perspective, SVAB reduced productivity loss for all the lesions. Based on the positive predictive value of the BI-RADS categories, SVAB was more suitable for the lesions of category 4A and category 3, resulting in greater savings in both medical and societal resources., Conclusions: SVAB is a cost-effective diagnostic option for nonpalpable breast lesions. The cost-saving effect is greater for the lesions of category 4A and category 3., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In recent years, most insurance plans eliminated cost-sharing for breast cancer screening and recommended screening intervals changed, and newer modalities-digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis-became more widely available. The objectives of this study are to examine how these changes affected utilization, frequency, and costs of breast cancer screening among commercially insured women, and to understand factors associated with utilization and frequency of screening. Materials and Methods: This study used commercial insurance claims data for women 50 to 64 years of age, continuously enrolled in commercial insurance plans during 2012-2016. Results: Of the 685,737 eligible women, 20% were not screened, 40% received annual screening, 24% received biennial screening, and 16% were screened less frequently than recommended during the time period examined. Sociodemographic factors such as age <60 years, rurality, and fee-for-service insurance were associated with low screening utilization. Patients who received annual screening incurred ∼1.78 times higher costs compared to those who received biennial screening during the study period. Digital mammography was the most costly and commonly used modality along with computer-aided detection. Conclusions: Evidence-based interventions to promote screening among women who are screened less frequently are needed along with interventions to move toward biennial screening rather than annual screening. Increasing provider awareness regarding breast cancer screening rates and frequency among various sociodemographic groups is essential to guide provider recommendations and shared decision making. The results of this study can guide targeted public health interventions to reduce barriers to screening, and can also serve as inputs for economic analyses of screening interventions and programs.

Background: In the Dutch breast cancer screening program, women recalled with a BI-RADS 0 score are referred for additional imaging, while those with BI-RADS 4/5 scores are also directed to an outpatient breast clinic. Approximately six out of ten women are recalled without being diagnosed with a malignancy. However, these recalls require additional imaging and doctor visits, which result in patient anxiety and increased health care costs. Conventional types of imaging used for additional imaging are full-field digital mammography and tomosynthesis. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography has proved to have higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging in women recalled from screening. Therefore, the aim is to study if CESM instead of conventional imaging is a more accurate, patient-friendly, and cost-effective strategy in the work-up of women recalled from breast cancer screening., Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial will be conducted at four centers and will include 528 patients recalled for suspicious breast lesions from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. Participants are randomized in two groups: (1) standard care using conventional breast imaging techniques as initial imaging after recall versus (2) work-up primarily based on CESM. Written informed consent will be collected prior to study inclusion. The primary outcome is the diagnostic accuracy for detection of breast cancer. Secondary outcomes are numbers of additional diagnostic exams, days until final diagnosis, health care costs, and experienced patient anxiety., Discussion: Based on previously published retrospective studies, we expect to demonstrate in this prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial, that using CESM as a primary work-up tool in women recalled from breast cancer screening is a more accurate, cost-effective, and patient-friendly strategy., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL6413/NTR6589. Registered on 6 July, 2017.

Purpose: Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) may influence or undermine the credibility of clinical practice guidelines or society recommendations. Given the wide regard of such publications, understanding the prevalence and extent of FCOIs among their authors is essential., Methods: The most current guidelines containing recommendations for breast cancer screening from the US Preventive Services Task Force, American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, International Agency for Research on Cancer, ACR, and American College of Physicians were retrieved from their respective organizational websites. Industry payments received by authors were then extracted using CMS Open Payments database (OPD), and the values and types of these payments were evaluated. Finally, financial disclosures were compared with open payments., Results: Among a total of 43 authors and 7 guideline documents, 14 authors (33%) received at least one industry payment according to OPD payment records, whereas a majority of 29 authors (67%) had none. The median total payment from all sources across all breast imaging guidelines was $0 (interquartile range, $0-$84). Four authors (9%) declared at least one significant FCOI, five (12%) received more than $5,000 from a single company in a single year, and one author had a significant FCOI (2%) identified from OPD records but not disclosed within the guideline document., Conclusions: These findings suggest that FCOIs likely have little to no influence on the adoption of consensus recommendations regarding routine screening mammography for all cohorts of women., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Many high value care educational interventions have focused on shaping clinical decision-making for individual patients. Few have investigated how trainees integrate cost information into recommendations within a public health context. Methods: Third-year medical students at the University of California San Francisco participated in a small group on benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. We randomly assigned half of small groups to view estimated total costs of different screening strategies. Students selected a screening strategy for coverage by a publicly funded program and one they would recommend to a hypothetical patient. We used the chi-square test for independence and chi-square test for trend to compare proportions. Results: A total of 267 third-year medical students participated. Exposure to costs was associated with selection of significantly less intensive screening strategies for coverage by a publicly funded program ( p  < 0.05). We found no significant differences in perspectives that involved recommendations for individual patients. Discussion: Students weigh cost considerations more heavily when making decisions about populations, rather than individual hypothetical patients. We suggest that it may be easier for students to relate cost considerations to populations. Initial curricular activities can be framed from this perspective with subsequent activities focusing on individual patient care.

Background: Several studies in Europe and the US have shown promising results favouring digital breast tomosynthesis compared to standard digital mammography (DM). However, the costs of implementing the technology in screening programmes are not yet known., Methods: A randomised controlled trial comparing the results from digital breast tomosynthesis including synthetic mammograms (DBT) vs. DM was performed in Bergen during 2016 and 2017 as a part of BreastScreen Norway. The trial included 29,453 women and allowed for a detailed comparison of procedure use and screening, recall and treatment costs estimated at the individual level., Results: The increased cost of equipment, examination and reading time with DBT vs. DM was €8.5 per screened woman (95% CI 8.4-8.6). Costs of DBT remained significantly higher after adding recall assessment costs, €6.2 (95% CI 4.6-7.9). Substantial reductions in either examination and reading times, price of DBT equipment or price of IT storage and connectivity did not change the conclusion. Adding treatment costs resulted in too wide confidence intervals to draw definitive conclusions (additional costs of tomosynthesis €9.8, 95% CI -56 to 74). Performing biopsy at recall, radiation therapy and chemotherapy was significantly more frequent among women screened with DBT., Conclusion: The results showed lower incremental costs of DBT vs. DM, compared to what is found in previous cost analyses of DBT and DM. However, the incremental costs were still higher for DBT compared with DM after including recall costs. Further studies with long-term treatment data are needed to understand the complete costs of implementing DBT in screening.

Introduction: Breast cancer is the second most prevalent neoplasm in women after cervical cancer in Peru. It is also the third leading cause of female mortality. The implementation of screening programs using mammography has led to a considerable reduction in the mortality of this cancer in high-income countries., Objectives: To analyze the factors associated with mammography use in Peruvian women between the ages of 40 and 59., Methods: Secondary analysis of the 2018 Demographic and Health Survey in Peru. The national representative sample consisted of 4822 women between the ages of 40 and 59. The main outcome was the use of mammography during the last 24 months, with which we calculated percentages and crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR)., Results: 16.9% of the surveyed women reported a mammography exam. A higher proportion of mammography use was observed in women with a higher level of education (30.1%), higher wealth quintile (34.2%) and those from capital cities (26.9%). Multivariate analysis showed that only the highest wealth index quintile (prevalence ratio: 5.75; 95% confidence interval: 2.97 to 11.15) compared to the lowest quintile; and the 55 to 59 age group (prevalence ratio: 1.83; 95% confidence interval: 1.31 to 2.55) compared to the 40 to 44 age group, were significantly associated with mammography., Conclusions: The use of mammography as a preventive examination for breast cancer in Peru is still low compared to other countries. The association of mammography with the better-off quintile shows the inequalities of access to preventive health in the country.

Objectives: To conduct cost effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses of the organized mammography-screening program in the Republic of Kazakhstan comparing women who developed breast cancer in screened and unscreened scenario., Methods: 389,352 screened women were included in the study. Among these, 895 women were further diagnosed with breast cancer. Outcomes measures include life years saved, quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and value of statistical life year. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty., Results: Compared to no screening scenario, an organized mammography yielded an additional 1,253 life years and 790 quality-adjusted life years in 2016. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was equal to 3,157 USD per one QALY saved, which is two times less than the GDP per capita in Kazakhstan in 2016. Sensitivity analysis showed that the mammography remains cost-effective in the majority of the scenarios., Conclusion: Mammography screening in Kazakhstan was found to be highly cost-effective, associated with treatment cost savings, and can be an efficient use of limited resources in Kazakhstan.

Objectives: Patient navigation (PN) services have been shown to improve cancer screening in disparate populations. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of implementing PN services within the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP)., Methods: We adapted a breast cancer simulation model to estimate a population cohort of women aged 40-64 years from the NBCCEDP through their lifetime. We incorporated their screening frequency and screening and diagnostic costs., Results: Within the NBCCEDP, Program with PN (vs. No PN) resulted in a greater number of mammograms per woman (4.23 vs. 4.14), lower lifetime mortality from breast cancer (3.53% vs. 3.61%), and fewer missed diagnostic resolution per woman (0.017 vs. 0.025). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a Program with PN was $32,531 per quality-adjusted life-years relative to Program with No PN., Conclusions: Incorporating PN services within the NBCCEDP may be a cost-effective way of improving adherence to screening and diagnostic resolution for women who have abnormal results from screening mammography. Our study highlights the value of supportive services such as PN in improving the quality of care offered within the NBCCEDP.

Introduction: We investigated the downstream workup and costs associated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with 2-dimensional full field digital mammogram (FFDM) when employed as initial follow-up imaging in breast conservation therapy., Methods: Between the years 2015 and 2017, 450 consecutive breast conservation therapy patients, ages 32 to 89, with a follow-up DBT (n=162) or FFDM (n=288) were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoints were further workup after follow-up mammogram and associated health care costs at 1 year. A single DBT costs an estimated $149 compared with $111 for FFDM, based on Centers for Medicare claims data from the Oncology Care Model., Results: The first posttreatment mammogram was received within 3 (20%), 3 to 6 (32%), or after 6 months (48%) following radiation. Younger patients and those undergoing hypofractionated radiation were more likely to get DBT. There were no differences in stage, receptor status, or mammogram timing between those in the FFDM and DBT groups.The following downstream workup ensued for DBT compared with FFDM imaging: 18% versus 29% short-interval (6-mo) mammogram (odds ratio=1.83, P=0.01), 6% versus 11% breast magnetic resonance imaging (odds ratio=1.90, P=0.08), 4% ultrasound for each, and 3% biopsy for each (1 positive in the FFDM group). Including downstream workup, the estimated cost per patient in the DBT group was $216.14 compared with $237.83 in the FFDM group. Independent predictors for reduced downstream workup per multivariable analysis were the use of DBT and first follow-up mammogram at least 6 months after radiation (P<0.05)., Discussion: Excess workup was reduced with DBT compared with FFDM in the posttreatment setting, which translated to an improvement in cost efficiency in this study.

Our objectives with this study were to describe the spatial distribution of mammographic screening coverage across small geographical areas (micro-regions) in Brazil, and to analyze whether the observed differences were associated with spatial inequities in socioeconomic conditions, provision of health care, and healthcare services utilization. We performed an area-based ecological study on mammographic screening coverage in the period of 2010-2011 regarding socioeconomic and healthcare variables. The units of analysis were the 438 health micro-regions in Brazil. Spatial regression models were used to study these relationships. There was marked variability in mammographic coverage across micro-regions (median = 21.6%; interquartile range: 8.1%-37.9%). Multivariable analyses identified high household income inequality, low number of radiologists/100,000 inhabitants, low number of mammography machines/10,000 inhabitants, and low number of mammograms performed by each machine as independent correlates of poor mammographic coverage at the micro-region level. There was evidence of strong spatial dependence of these associations, with changes in one micro-region affecting neighboring micro-regions, and also of geographical heterogeneities. There were substantial inequities in access to mammographic screening across micro-regions in Brazil, in 2010-2011, with coverage being higher in those with smaller wealth inequities and better access to health care.

Purpose: Bundled payments have been touted as mechanisms to optimize quality and costs. A recent feasibility study evaluating bundled payments for screening mammography episodes predated widespread adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). We explore a similar model reflecting emerging acceptance of DBT in breast cancer screening., Methods: Using 4-year data for 59,094 screening episodes from two large facilities within a large academic health system, we utilized published methodology to calibrate Medicare national allowable reference prices for women undergoing screening mammography before and after practice-wide implementation of DBT., Results: Excluding DBT, Medicare-normalized bundled prices for traditional breast imaging 364 days downstream to screening mammography are extremely similar pre- and post-DBT implementation ($182.86 in 2013; $182.68 in 2015). The addition of DBT increased a DBT-inclusive bundled price by $53.16 (an amount lower than the $56.13 Medicare allowable fee for screening DBT) but was associated with significantly reduced recall rates (13.0% versus 9.4%; P < .0001). Without or with DBT, screening episode bundled prices remained sensitive to bundle-included services and varied little by patient age, race, or insurance status., Conclusions: Prior non-DBT approaches to bundled payment models for breast cancer screening remain viable as DBT becomes the standard of care, with bundle prices varying little by patient age, race, or insurance status. Higher DBT-inclusive bundled prices, however, highlight the need to explore societal costs more broadly (eg, reduced time away from work from fewer recalls) as bundled payment models evolve., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Because cost may be a barrier to receiving mammography screening, cost sharing for "in-network" screening mammograms was eliminated in many insurance plans with implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We examined prevalence of out-of-pocket payments for screening mammography after elimination in many plans. Materials and Methods: Using 2015 National Health Interview Survey data, we examined whether women aged 50-74 years who had screening mammography within the previous year ( n  = 3,278) reported paying any cost for mammograms. Logistic regression models stratified by age (50-64 and 65-74 years) examined out-of-pocket payment by demographics and insurance (ages 50-64 years: private, Medicaid, other, and uninsured; ages 65-74 years: private ± Medicare, Medicare+Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, Medicare only, and other). Results: Of women aged 50-64 years, 23.5% reported payment, including 39.1% of uninsured women. Compared with that of privately insured women, payment was less likely for women with Medicaid (adjusted OR 0.17 [95% CI 0.07-0.41]) or other insurance (0.49 [0.25-0.96]) and more likely for uninsured women (1.99 [0.99-4.02]) ( p  < 0.001 across groups). For women aged 65-74 years, 11.9% reported payment, including 22.5% of Medicare-only beneficiaries. Compared with private ± Medicare beneficiaries, payment was less likely for Medicare+Medicaid beneficiaries (adjusted OR 0.21 [95% CI 0.06-0.73]) and more likely for Medicare-only beneficiaries (1.83 [1.01-3.32]) ( p  = 0.005 across groups). Conclusions: Although most women reported no payment for their most recent screening mammogram in 2015, some payment was reported by >20% of women aged 50-64 years or aged 65-74 years with Medicare only, and by almost 40% of uninsured women aged 50-64 years. Efforts are needed to understand why many women in some groups report paying out of pocket for mammograms and whether this impacts screening use.

Purpose: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are a delivery and payment model designed to encourage integrated, high-value care. We designed a study to test the association between ACOs and two recommended cancer screening tests, colonoscopy for colorectal cancer and mammography for breast cancer., Methods: Using the random 20% sample of Medicare claims, beneficiaries were attributed to ACO or non-ACO cohorts on the basis of providers' enrollment in the Medicare Shared Savings Program. An inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance patient characteristics between ACO and non-ACO cohorts. A propensity score-weighted, difference-in-differences analysis was then performed using the same provider groups in 2010-pre-ACO-as a baseline. A secondary analysis for older-nonrecommended-age ranges was performed., Results: Prevalence of colonoscopy in recommended age ranges in ACOs from 2010 to 2014 increased from 15.3% (95% CI, 14.9% to 15.6%) to 17.9% (95% CI, 17.3% to 18.5%). This differed significantly from the change in non-ACOs (difference in differences, 1.2%; P < .001). Among women in ACOs, mammography prevalence rose from 53.7% (95% CI, 53.0% to 54.4%) to 54.9% (95% CI, 54.2% to 55.7%). In contrast to colonoscopy, the difference in mammography prevalence was not significantly different in ACO versus non-ACOs (difference in differences, 0.49%; P < .13). A similar pattern was also observed in older-nonrecommended-age ranges with significant difference in differences (ACO v non-ACO) in colonoscopy, but not mammography., Conclusion: The impact of ACOs on cancer screening varies between screening tests. Our results are consistent with a greater effect of ACOs on high-cost, high-complexity screening services, which may be more sensitive to integrated care delivery models.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of intensified breast cancer (BC) screening for women with a BRCA1/2 mutation aged 60-74. Simulated strategies were: (0) annual mammography as reference, (1) alternating annual mammography and MRI for women with dense breasts only; (2) addition of annual MRI for women with dense breasts only; (3) addition of annual MRI for all women., Materials and Methods: A validated micro-simulation model of invasive BC was updated and validated for interval BC rates and tumor size distribution. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of all three intensified strategies were compared to the next best strategy and stratified for BRCA1 and BRCA2. Discount rates for costs and life years gained (LYG) were 1.5% and 4% for the Dutch situation; 3% and 3% for international comparison. A threshold of €20,000 per LYG was applied., Results: All intensified strategies showed more detected BCs and LYG, reduced BC deaths, and increased false positives. The Dutch discounted ICER of intensified strategy 1 compared to annual mammography was €38,000 per LYG in BRCA1 mutation carriers and €18,000 per LYG in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further intensified strategies showed an ICER above the threshold when compared to this strategy. With international discount rate, the ICERs of all intensified strategies were above the threshold., Conclusion: Of the three alternative strategies, only alternating annual MRI and mammography for BRCA2 mutation carriers and dense breasts aged 60-75 is cost-effective compared to annual mammography. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, none of the alternative strategies is cost-effective compared to the next best strategy., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess changes in screening mammography cost sharing and utilization before and after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the revised US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. To compare mammography cost sharing between women aged 40 to 49 and those 50 to 74., Methods: We used patient-level analytic files between 2004 and 2014 from Clinformatics Data Mart (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, Minnesota). We included women 40 to 74 years without a history of breast cancer or mastectomy. We conducted an interrupted time series analyses assessing cost sharing and utilization trends before and after the ACA implementation and USPSTF revised guidelines., Results: We identified 1,763,959 commercially insured women aged 40 to 74 years. Between 2004 and 2014, the proportion of women with zero cost share for screening mammography increased from 81.9% in 2004 to 98.2% in 2014, reaching 93.1% with the 2010 ACA implementation. The adjusted median cost share remained $0 over time. Initially at 36.0% in 2004, screening utilization peaked at 42.2% in 2009 with the USPSTF guidelines change, dropping to 40.0% in 2014. Comparing women aged 40 to 49, 50 to 64, and 65 to 74, the proportion exposed to cost sharing declined over time in all groups., Conclusions: A substantial majority of commercially insured women had first-dollar coverage for mammography before the ACA. After ACA, nearly all women had access to zero cost-share mammography. The lack of an increase in mammography use post-ACA can be partially attributed to a USPSTF guideline change, the high proportion of women without cost sharing before the ACA, and the relatively low levels of cost sharing before the policy implementation., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Screening high-risk women for breast cancer with MRI is cost-effective, with increasing cost-effectiveness paralleling increasing risk. However, for average-risk women cost is considered a major limitation to mass screening with MRI., Purpose: To perform a cost-benefit analysis of a simulated breast cancer screening program for average-risk women comparing MRI with mammography., Study Type: Population simulation study., Population/subjects: Five million (M) hypothetical women undergoing breast cancer screening., Field Strength/sequence: Simulation based primarily on Kuhl et al 8 study utilizing 1.5T MRI with an axial bilateral 2D multisection gradient-echo dynamic series (repetition time / echo time 250/4.6 msec; flip angle, 90°) with a full 512 × 512 acquisition matrix and a sensitivity encoding factor of two, performed prior to and four times after bolus injection of 0.1 mmol of gadobutrol per kg of body weight (Gadovist; Bayer, Germany). An axial T 2 -weighted fast spin-echo sequence with identical anatomic parameters was also included., Assessment: A Monte Carlo simulation utilizing Medicare reimbursement rates to calculate input variable costs was developed to compare 5M women undergoing breast cancer screening with either triennial MRI or annual mammography, 2.5M in each group, over 30 years., Statistical Tests: Expected recall rates, BI-RADS 3, BI-RADS 4/5 cases and cancer detection rates were determined from published literature with calculated aggregate costs including resultant diagnostic/follow-up imaging and biopsies., Results: Baseline screening of 2.5M women with breast MRI cost $1.6 billion (B), 3× higher than baseline mammography screening ($0.54B). With subsequent screening, MRI screening is more cost-effective than mammography screening in 24 years ($13.02B vs. $13.03B). MRI screening program costs are largely driven by cost per MRI exam ($549.71). A second simulation model was performed based on MRI Medicare reimbursement trends using a lower MRI cost ($400). This yielded a cost-effective benefit compared to mammography screening in less than 6 years ($3.41B vs. $3.65B), with over a 22% cost reduction relative to mammography screening in 12 years and reaching a 38% reduction in 30 years., Data Conclusion: Despite higher initial cost of a breast MRI screening program for average-risk women, there is ultimately a cost savings over time compared with mammography. This estimate is conservative given cost-benefit of additional/earlier breast cancers detected by breast MRI were not accounted for., Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019., (© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)

Objectives: Risk stratification has so far been evaluated under the assumption that women fully adhere to screening recommendations. However, the participation in German cancer screening programs remains low at 54%. The question arises whether risk-stratified screening is economically efficient under the assumption that adherence is not perfect., Method: We have adapted a micro-simulation Markov model to the German context. Annual, biennial, and triennial routine screening are compared with five risk-adapted strategies using thresholds of relative risk to stratify screening frequencies. We used three outcome variables (mortality reduction, quality-adjusted life years, and false-positive results) under the assumption of full adherence vs. an adherence rate of 54%. Strategies are evaluated using efficiency frontiers and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA)., Results: The reduced adherence rate affects both performance and cost; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remain constant. The results of PSA show that risk-stratified screening strategies are more efficient than biennial routine screening under certain conditions. At any willingness-to-pay (WTP), there is a risk-stratified alternative with a higher likelihood of being the best choice. However, without explicit decision criteria and WTP, risk-stratified screening is not more efficient than biennial routine screening. Potential improvements in the adherence rates have significant health gains and budgetary implications., Conclusion: If the participation rate for mammographic screening is as low as in Germany, stratified screening is not clearly more efficient than routine screening but dependent on the WTP. A more promising design for future stratified strategies is the combination of risk stratification mechanisms with interventions to improve the low adherence in selected high-risk groups., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required private insurers and Medicare to cover recommended preventive services without any cost sharing to improve utilization of these services. This study is an attempt to identify the impact of removing cost sharing on mammography and pap test utilization rates., Methods: Counterfactual analysis was used to predict what would have been the screening rates in post-ACA if ACA was not there. This was done by estimating a model that examines determinants of dependent variable for the pre-ACA year (pre-ACA year is 2009). The estimated model was then used to predict the dependent variable for the post-ACA year using individual characteristics and other relevant variables unlikely to be affected by ACA (post-ACA year is 2016). Effect of ACA is defined as the difference between the values of dependent variables in post-ACA and the predicted values of dependent variables in the post-ACA year using counterfactual., Results: The counterfactual analysis show that the utilization of mammogram and pap test did not improve following ACA., Conclusion: Removal of cost-sharing under the ACA did not improve mammography or pap test rates. Therefore, financial barrier may not be an important factor in affecting utilization of the screening tests and policy makers should focus on other non-financial barriers in order to improve coverage of the tests.

As population health has become a focus of health care payers and providers, interest has grown in mail, phone, and other forms of outreach for improving population rates of cancer screening. Translational research is needed to compare the effectiveness and cost of low- and high-intensity behavioral outreach interventions for promoting cancer screening. The purpose of the article is to compare the effectiveness in promoting biannual mammograms of three interventions delivered over 4 years to a primary care population with a high baseline mammography adherence of 83.3%. We randomized women aged 40-84 to reminder letter only (LO arm), letter + reminder call (RC arm), and two letters + counseling call (CC arm) involving tailored education and motivational interviewing. Mammography adherence (≥1 mammogram in the previous 24 months) at four time points was determined from insurance claims records. Over 4 years, 30,162 women were randomized. At the end of 4 years, adherence was highest in the RC arm (83.0%) compared with CC (80.8%) and LO (80.8%) arms (p = .03). Only 23.5% of women in the CC arm were reached and accepted full counseling. The incremental cost per additional mammogram for RC arm women was $30.45 over the LO arm cost. A simple reminder call can increase screening mammogram adherence even when baseline adherence is high. Some more complex behavioral interventions delivered by mail and phone as in this study may be less effective, due to limited participation of patients, a focus on ambivalence, lack of follow-up, and other factors., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)