Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study

BACKGROUND: Single reading with computer aided detection (CAD) is an alternative to double reading for detecting cancer in screening mammograms. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of a single reader with CAD is more cost-effective than double reading. METHODS: Based on data from the CADET II study, the cost-effectiveness of single reading with CAD versus double reading was measured in terms of cost per cancer detected. Cost (Pound (£), year 2007/08) of single reading with CAD versus double reading was estimated assuming a health and social service perspective and a 7 year time horizon. As the equipment cost varies according to the unit size a separate analysis was conducted for high, average and low volume screening units. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the reading time, equipment and assessment cost, recall rate and reader qualification. RESULTS: CAD is cost increasing for all sizes of screening unit. The introduction of CAD is cost-increasing compared to double reading because the cost of CAD equipment, staff training and the higher assessment cost associated with CAD are greater than the saving in reading costs. The introduction of single reading with CAD, in place of double reading, would produce an additional cost of £227 and £253 per 1,000 women screened in high and average volume units respectively. In low volume screening units, the high cost of purchasing the equipment will results in an additional cost of £590 per 1,000 women screened.One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the factors having the greatest effect on the cost-effectiveness of CAD with single reading compared with double reading were the reading time and the reader's professional qualification (radiologist versus advanced practitioner). CONCLUSIONS: Without improvements in CAD effectiveness (e.g. a decrease in the recall rate) CAD is unlikely to be a cost effective alternative to double reading for mammography screening in UK. This study provides updated estimates of CAD costs in a full-field digital system and assessment cost for women who are re-called after initial screening. However, the model is highly sensitive to various parameters e.g. reading time, reader qualification, and equipment cost

'Omic approaches to preventing or managing metastatic breast cancer

Early detection of metastasis-prone breast cancers and characterization of residual metastatic cancers are important in efforts to improve management of breast cancer. Applications of genome-scale molecular analysis technologies are making these complementary approaches possible by revealing molecular features uniquely associated with metastatic disease. Assays that reveal these molecular features will facilitate development of anatomic, histological and blood-based strategies that may enable detection prior to metastatic spread. Knowledge of these features also will guide development of therapeutic strategies that can be applied when metastatic disease burden is low, thereby increasing the probability of a curative response

Mammographic screening in women at increased risk of breast cancer after treatment of Hodgkin's disease

Treatment regimens for Hodgkin's disease (HD) that have included radiation to lymph node regions in the thorax have contributed to high rates of long-term disease-free survival. However, incidental radiation exposure of breast tissue in young women has significantly increased the risk of breast cancer compared to expected rates in the general population. After informing patients about risks associated with previous treatment of HD, we studied screening mammograms and call-back rates in women at increased risk for developing breast cancer at a younger age. We contacted by mail a cohort of 291 women between 25 and 55 years of age who had received thoracic irradiation before 35 years of age for HD with or without chemotherapy. Subjects were offered information about risks identified after HD therapy with questionnaires to assess response to this information. Ten patients refused participation, 93 did not respond, and 21 were excluded after they reported a prior diagnosis of invasive (1) or in situ (2) breast cancer. One hundred and sixty seven women received information about secondary breast cancer risk and were advised to initiate or maintain mammographic screening. Available mammograms were reviewed by two radiologists and classified according to the ACR BI-RADS™ Mammography Lexicon. Abnormal findings were correlated to pathology results from biopsies. One hundred and fifteen subjects reported that they obtained new mammograms during the period of the study. Ninety-nine were available for secondary review. Patients were studied an average of 16.9 years after HD treatment (Range: 4.5-32.5 years) at an average of 41 years of age (range 25-55 years). High density breast tissue was identified in 60% (60/99). Seventeen of the women (17.2%) were recalled for further imaging. This was more common in women with heterogeneously dense breast tissue. Seven of those recalled (41%) were advised to undergo biopsies that identified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in one and benign findings in the others. Among 16 women whose mammograms were unavailable for review, three were diagnosed with DCIS; two of these had microscopic evidence of invasive breast cancer. The four in situ or microinvasive cancers were diagnosed in the study participants at 25-40 years of age and from 5 to 23 years after HD therapy. Biopsies were performed because mammograms detected microcalcifications without palpable abnormality in three of these cases. Women who have had thoracic nodal irradiation for Hodgkin's disease have an increased risk of developing secondary breast cancer at an unusually young age. As expected in younger women, high density breast tissue was common on mammography, and the recall and biopsy rates were unusually high. However, early mammographic screening facilitated diagnosis of in situ and early invasive cancer in 3.5% of our subjects. © 2007 Blackwell Publishing, Inc