Cost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norway

Tron Anders Moger, Jayson O Swanson, Åsne Sørlien Holen, Berit Hanestad, Solveig Hofvind, Tron Anders Moger, Jayson O Swanson, Åsne Sørlien Holen, Berit Hanestad, Solveig Hofvind

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Costs; Mammography; Screening; Tomosynthesis.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the recruitment process used in the To-Be1 trial. DBT digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic mammography; DM digital mammography

References

    1. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, Izadi M, Jebsen IN, Jahr G, Krager M, Niklason LT, Hofvind S, Gur D. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47–56. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121373.
    1. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, Tuttobene P, Bricolo P, Fantò C, Valentini M, Montemezzi S, Macaskill P. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:583–589. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7.
    1. Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur. Radiol. 2016;26:184–190. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3.
    1. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, Tuttobene P, Bricolo P, Fantò C, Valentini M, Ciatto S. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading—evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur. J. Cancer. 2014;50:1799–1807. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.017.
    1. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269:694–700. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130307.
    1. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:737–743. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536.
    1. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R., Jr Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013;200:1401–1408. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9672.
    1. Hodgson R, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Harvey SC, Edwards M, Shaikh J, Arber M, Glanville J. Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast. 2016;27:52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.01.002.
    1. Miller JD, Bonafede MM, Herschorn SD, Pohlman SK, Troeger KA, Fajardo LL. Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a US Medicaid population. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2017;14:467–474. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.11.019.
    1. Hunter SA, Morris C, Nelson K, Snyder BJ, Poulton TB. Digital breast tomosynthesis: cost-effectiveness of using private and medicare insurance in community-based health care facilities. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017;208:1171–1175. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16987.
    1. Bonafede MM, Kalra VB, Miller JD, Fajardo LL. Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 2015;12:53–63.
    1. Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, Jarvik JG, Ramsey SD, Lehman CD. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology. 2015;274:772–780. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14141237.
    1. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Anesi V, Burlon S, Cauli E, Depaoli M, Larentis L, Malesani V, Targa L, Baldo P, Houssami N. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br. J. Radiol. 2012;85:e1174–e1178. doi: 10.1259/bjr/19385909.
    1. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology. 2012;262:788–796. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11103514.
    1. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, Rathfon GY, Lu AH, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology. 2013;266:89–95. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120552.
    1. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin. Radiol. 2016;71:141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008.
    1. Lee CI, Lee JM, Tosteson AN. Annual combined mammography and tomosynthesis screening: is it really cost-effective? Am. J. Roentgenol. 2016;207:1156–1158. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16642.
    1. Lee CI, Lehman CD. Digital breast tomosynthesis and the challenges of implementing an emerging breast cancer screening technology into clinical practice. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2013;10:913–917. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.09.010.
    1. Houssami N, Skaane P. Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast. 2013;22:101–108. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.017.
    1. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, Ekseth U, Izadi M, Hofvind S, Gullien R. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271:655–663. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131391.
    1. Cancer Registry of Norway . Special issue. Oslo: Cancer Screening in Norway. Cancer Registry of Norway; 2011.
    1. Aase H, Holen ÅS, Pedersen K, Houssami N, Haldorsen IS, Sebuødegård S, Hanestad B, Hofvind S. A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Norway: interim analysis of performance indicators from the TOBE trial. Eur. Radiol. 2018 doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x.
    1. The Norwegian Directorate of eHealth: NCMP, NCSP OG NCRP: Klassifikasjon av helsefaglige prosedyrer 2017. 01/2017: IE-1001. The Norwegian Directorate of eHealth (2017) (in Norwegian)
    1. The Norwegian Directorate of Health: Regelverk finansiering poliklinisk radiologi 2017—Statlige helseinstitusjoner. The Norwegian Directorate of Health (2016) (in Norwegian)
    1. The Norwegian Directorate of Health: Innsatsstyrt finansiering 2017. 12/2016: IS-2568. The Norwegian Directorate of Health (2016) (in Norwegian)
    1. The Norwegian Directorate of Health: Nasjonalt handlingsprogram med retningslinjer for diagnostikk, behandling og oppfølging av pasienter med brystkreft. 10/2017: IS-2634. The Norwegian Directorate of Health (2017) (in Norwegian)
    1. Tsuruda K, Sagstad S, Sebuødegård S, Hofvind S. Validity and reliability of self-reported health indicators among women attending organized mammographic screening. Scand. J. Public Health. 2018;46:744–751. doi: 10.1177/1403494817749393.
    1. Butler H. Position control in lithographic equipment. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 2011;31:28–47.
    1. NCTA-The Internet and Television Association: the price per megabit per second has gone down 90 percent. NCTA research. (2017). Accessed 24 May 2019
    1. Legood, R, Gray, A.: A cost comparison of full field digital mammography (FFDM) wit film-screen mammography in breast cancer screening. NHSBSP Equipment Report no. 0403 (2004)
    1. Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller BM. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1082–1091. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn224.
    1. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D’Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2003;295:1384–1393. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djg048.
    1. Cancer Registry of Norway. Key figures for the mammography program. (2018). Accessed 30 August 2018

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever