Article

Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population

Department of Hematology and Oncology, School of Medicine, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, USA.
BMC Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 1.66). 01/2009; 9:9. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sensitive method of breast imaging virtually uninfluenced by breast density. Because of the improved sensitivity, breast MRI is increasingly being used for detection of breast cancer among high risk young women. However, the specificity of breast MRI is variable and costs are high. The purpose of this study was to determine if breast MRI is a cost-effective approach for the detection of breast cancer among young women at high risk.
A Markov model was created to compare annual breast cancer screening over 25 years with either breast MRI or mammography among young women at high risk. Data from published studies provided probabilities for the model including sensitivity and specificity of each screening strategy. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services while medication costs were obtained from the Federal Supply Scale. Utilities from the literature were applied to each health outcome in the model including a disutility for the temporary health state following breast biopsy for a false positive test result. All costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per year. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective with results reported in 2006 U.S. dollars. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in all model parameters.
Breast MRI provided 14.1 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a discounted cost of $18,167 while mammography provided 14.0 QALYs at a cost of $4,760 over 25 years of screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of breast MRI compared to mammography was $179,599/QALY. In univariate analysis, breast MRI screening became < $50,000/QALY when the cost of the MRI was < $315. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, MRI screening produced a net health benefit of -0.202 QALYs (95% central range: -0.767 QALYs to +0.439 QALYs) compared to mammography at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Breast MRI screening was superior in 0%, < $50,000/QALY in 22%, > $50,000/QALY in 34%, and inferior in 44% of trials.
Although breast MRI may provide health benefits when compared to mammographic screening for some high risk women, it does not appear to be cost-effective even at willingness to pay thresholds above $120,000/QALY.

Full-text

Available from: Christopher R Flowers, May 28, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
225 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Challenging behaviors exhibited by individuals with dementia might result from an unmet need that they cannot communicate directly due to cognitive restrictions. A dementia-specific case conference represents a promising means of analyzing and exploring these unmet needs. The ongoing FallDem study is a stepped-wedged, cluster-randomized trial evaluating the effects of two different types of dementia-specific case conferences on the challenging behaviors of nursing home residents. This study protocol describes the process evaluation that is conducted, along with the FallDem study.The goal of the process evaluation is to explain potential discrepancies between expected and observed outcomes, and to provide insights into implementation processes and recruitment strategies, as well as the contexts and contextual factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of dementia-specific case conferences. The process evaluation will use a mixed-method design comprising longitudinal elements, in which quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered. Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analysis, documentary analysis and a documentary method. Quantitative data (standardized questionnaires) will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Both types of data will complement one another and provide a more comprehensive picture of the different objects under investigation. The process evaluation will allow for a comprehensive understanding of the changing processes and mechanisms underlying the 'black box' of the complex intervention of the FallDem study. These findings will provide practical knowledge regarding issues related to the implementation of dementia-specific case conferences in nursing homes.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials identifier: ISRCTN20203855, registered on 10th July 2013.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Innovations that improve sensitivity and reduce cost are of paramount importance in diagnostic imaging. The novel x-ray imaging modality called spatial frequency heterodyne imaging (SFHI) is based on a linear arrangement of x-ray source, tissue, and x-ray detector, much like that of a conventional x-ray imaging apparatus. However, SFHI rests on a complete paradigm reversal compared to conventional x-ray absorption-based radiology: while scattered x-rays are carefully rejected in absorption-based x-ray radiology to enhance the image contrast, SFHI forms images exclusively from x-rays scattered by the tissue. In this study we use numerical processing to produce x-ray scatter images of hepatocellular carcinoma labeled with a nanoparticle contrast agent. We subsequently compare the sensitivity of SFHI in this application to that of both conventional x-ray imaging and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Although SFHI is still in the early stages of its development, our results show that the sensitivity of SFHI is an order of magnitude greater than that of absorption-based x-ray imaging and approximately equal to that of MRI. As x-ray imaging modalities typically have lower installation and service costs compared to MRI, SFHI could become a cost effective alternative to MRI, particularly in areas of the world with inadequate availability of MRI facilities.
    Physics in Medicine and Biology 01/2015; 60(2):769-84. DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/60/2/769 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Overweight and obesity are major health risks in the United States (US) and primary care physicians (PCPs) are uniquely positioned to address them. However, their personal beliefs about weight-related care may influence their delivery of care. Methods A nationally representative sample of 2022 physicians completed the National Survey of Energy Balance-Related Care among Primary Care Physicians. Physicians responded to questions regarding their beliefs and clinical practices associated with weight control including assessment, counselling, referral and follow-up for diet, physical activity, and weight. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine associations between physician characteristics and personal beliefs, and associations between personal beliefs and care delivery, adjusting for specialty, age, gender, race, region, urban/rural location, and patient population. Results Most physicians feel a responsibility (97%) to promote weight-related care, but over half (53%) have concerns about their effectiveness and almost two-thirds feel they lack effective strategies to help patients (63%). Demographics and medical specialty were associated with beliefs (female, Asian-American, Midwest and Southern location, and internal medicine physicians were more likely to have stronger positive beliefs about weight-related care). Personal beliefs about weight-related care were associated with the likelihood of its delivery. However, two practices, regular BMI assessment and referring patients for further evaluation and management, were less related to PCP beliefs than were other care practices. Conclusions PCPs’ beliefs may be important to their practice of weight-related care. Training in behavioural counselling, and providing physician's tools and resources may help to address their concerns about helping patients with weight-related care.
    Obesity Research & Clinical Practice 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.orcp.2014.08.002 · 0.70 Impact Factor