Scholarlink

Objectives <p>Automated breast ultrasound imaging (ABUS) results in a reduction in breast cancer stage at diagnosis beyond that seen with mammographic screening in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of breast cancer. It is unknown if the addition of ABUS to mammography or ABUS imaging alone, in this population, is a cost-effective screening strategy.</p> Methods <p>A discrete event simulation (Monte Carlo) model was developed to assess the costs of screening, diagnostic evaluation, biopsy, and breast cancer treatment. The number of quality-adjusted life years gained through each screening method is assessed using previously published quality of life measures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for screening with the combination of mammographic and ABUS imaging, and for ABUS imaging alone are calculated as compared to standard mammographic imaging.</p> Results <p>Combined screening with both mammographic and ABUS imaging results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,071 ($6,332–$7,809) when compared to traditional mammographic imaging (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). ABUS screening alone results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,559 ($−&#xa0;965–$8,082) when compared to mammographic imaging (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). ABUS screening alone is more likely to be cost-effective for a willingness-to-pay of less than $7,100.</p> Conclusions <p>The addition of ABUS to mammographic imaging is a cost-effective screening strategy in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of developing breast cancer. ABUS imaging alone is also a cost-effective strategy in this population, particularly in resource-poor areas.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Adding automated breast ultrasound to mammography in women with increased breast density or at an elevated risk of breast cancer is a cost-effective screening strategy

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月3日

查看全文
  • Ian Grady,
  • Sean Grady,
  • Nailya Chanisheva

摘要

Objectives

Automated breast ultrasound imaging (ABUS) results in a reduction in breast cancer stage at diagnosis beyond that seen with mammographic screening in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of breast cancer. It is unknown if the addition of ABUS to mammography or ABUS imaging alone, in this population, is a cost-effective screening strategy.

Methods

A discrete event simulation (Monte Carlo) model was developed to assess the costs of screening, diagnostic evaluation, biopsy, and breast cancer treatment. The number of quality-adjusted life years gained through each screening method is assessed using previously published quality of life measures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for screening with the combination of mammographic and ABUS imaging, and for ABUS imaging alone are calculated as compared to standard mammographic imaging.

Results

Combined screening with both mammographic and ABUS imaging results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,071 ($6,332–$7,809) when compared to traditional mammographic imaging (p < 0.05). ABUS screening alone results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,559 ($− 965–$8,082) when compared to mammographic imaging (p < 0.05). ABUS screening alone is more likely to be cost-effective for a willingness-to-pay of less than $7,100.

Conclusions

The addition of ABUS to mammographic imaging is a cost-effective screening strategy in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of developing breast cancer. ABUS imaging alone is also a cost-effective strategy in this population, particularly in resource-poor areas.