A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies

Background: Risk-prediction models have been proposed to select individuals for lung cancer screening. However, their longterm effects are uncertain. This study evaluates long-term benefits and harms of risk-based screening compared with current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. Methods: Four independent natural history models were used to perform a comparative modeling study evaluating longterm benefits and harms of selecting individuals for lung cancer screening through risk-prediction models. In total, 363 riskbased screening strategies varying by screening starting and stopping age, risk-prediction model used for eligibility (Bach, PLCOm2012, or Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]), and risk threshold were evaluated for a 1950 US birth cohort. Among the evaluated outcomes were percentage of individuals ever screened, screens required, lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, and overdiagnosis. Results: Risk-based screening strategies requiring sim

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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$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.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>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.</p

Breast tumor characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers on MRI

The appearance of malignant lesions in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA-MCs) on mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated. Thus, 29 BRCA-MCs with breast cancer were retrospectively evaluated and the results compared with an age, tumor size and tumor type matched control group of 29 sporadic breast cancer cases. Detection rates on both modalities were evaluated. Tumors were analyzed on morphology, density (mammography), enhancement pattern and kinetics (MRI). Overall detection was significantly better with MRI than with mammography (55/58 vs 44/57, P = 0.021). On mammography, lesions in the BRCA-MC group were significantly more described as rounded (12//19 vs 3/13, P = 0.036) and with sharp margins (9/19 vs 1/13, P = 0.024). On MRI lesions in the BRCA-MC group were significantly more described as rounded (16/27 vs 7/28, P = 0.010), with sharp margins (20/27 vs 7/28, P < 0.001) and with rim enhancement (7/27 vs 1/28, P = 0.025). No significant difference was found for enhancement kinetics (P = 0.667). Malignant lesions in BRCA-MC frequently have morphological characteristics commonly seen in benign lesions, like a rounded shape or sharp margins. This applies for both mammography and MRI. However the possibility of MRI to evaluate the enhancement pattern and kinetics enables the detection of characteristics suggestive for a malignancy

Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening : a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions

BACKGROUND: The economic evaluation of stratified breast cancer screening gains momentum, but produces also very diverse results. Systematic reviews so far focused on modeling techniques and epidemiologic assumptions. However, cost and utility parameters received only little attention. This systematic review assesses simulation models for stratified breast cancer screening based on their cost and utility parameters in each phase of breast cancer screening and care. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to compare economic evaluations with simulation models of personalized breast cancer screening. Study quality was assessed using reporting guidelines. Cost and utility inputs were extracted, standardized and structured using a care delivery framework. Studies were then clustered according to their study aim and parameters were compared within the clusters. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified within three study clusters. Reporting quality was very diverse in all three clusters. Only two studies in cluster 1, four studies in cluster 2 and one study in cluster 3 scored high in the quality appraisal. In addition to the quality appraisal, this review assessed if the simulation models were consistent in integrating all relevant phases of care, if utility parameters were consistent and methodological sound and if cost were compatible and consistent in the actual parameters used for screening, diagnostic work up and treatment. Of 18 studies, only three studies did not show signs of potential bias. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows that a closer look into the cost and utility parameter can help to identify potential bias. Future simulation models should focus on integrating all relevant phases of care, using methodologically sound utility parameters and avoiding inconsistent cost parameters