Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts

Brian L. Sprague, Natasha K. Stout, Clyde B. Schechter, Nicolien T. Van Ravesteyn, Mucahit Cevik, Oguzhan Alagoz, Christoph I. Lee, Jeroen J. Van Den Broek, Diana L. Miglioretti, Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, Harry J. De Koning, Karla Kerlikowske, Constance D. Lehman, Anna N A Tosteson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

89 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Many states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness. Objective: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Design: Comparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature. Target Population: Contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Payer. Intervention: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result. Outcome Measures: Breast cancer deaths averted, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Supplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a falsepositive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325 000 per QALY gained (range, $112 000 to $766 000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246 000 per QALY gained (range, $74 000 to $535 000). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age. Limitation: Provider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered. Conclusion: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)157-166
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume162
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 3 2015

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Ultrasonography
Breast
Mammography
Costs and Cost Analysis
Breast Neoplasms
SEER Program
Biopsy
Health Services Needs and Demand
Information Storage and Retrieval
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Sprague, B. L., Stout, N. K., Schechter, C. B., Van Ravesteyn, N. T., Cevik, M., Alagoz, O., ... Tosteson, A. N. A. (2015). Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Annals of Internal Medicine, 162(3), 157-166. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0692

Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. / Sprague, Brian L.; Stout, Natasha K.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.; Cevik, Mucahit; Alagoz, Oguzhan; Lee, Christoph I.; Van Den Broek, Jeroen J.; Miglioretti, Diana L.; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.; De Koning, Harry J.; Kerlikowske, Karla; Lehman, Constance D.; Tosteson, Anna N A.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 162, No. 3, 03.02.2015, p. 157-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sprague, BL, Stout, NK, Schechter, CB, Van Ravesteyn, NT, Cevik, M, Alagoz, O, Lee, CI, Van Den Broek, JJ, Miglioretti, DL, Mandelblatt, JS, De Koning, HJ, Kerlikowske, K, Lehman, CD & Tosteson, ANA 2015, 'Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 162, no. 3, pp. 157-166. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0692
Sprague, Brian L. ; Stout, Natasha K. ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T. ; Cevik, Mucahit ; Alagoz, Oguzhan ; Lee, Christoph I. ; Van Den Broek, Jeroen J. ; Miglioretti, Diana L. ; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S. ; De Koning, Harry J. ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Lehman, Constance D. ; Tosteson, Anna N A. / Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 162, No. 3. pp. 157-166.
@article{e20e28e649ff4fa6ae3def6982a39fb0,
title = "Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts",
abstract = "Background: Many states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness. Objective: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Design: Comparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature. Target Population: Contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Payer. Intervention: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result. Outcome Measures: Breast cancer deaths averted, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Supplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a falsepositive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325 000 per QALY gained (range, $112 000 to $766 000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246 000 per QALY gained (range, $74 000 to $535 000). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age. Limitation: Provider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered. Conclusion: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits.",
author = "Sprague, {Brian L.} and Stout, {Natasha K.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and {Van Ravesteyn}, {Nicolien T.} and Mucahit Cevik and Oguzhan Alagoz and Lee, {Christoph I.} and {Van Den Broek}, {Jeroen J.} and Miglioretti, {Diana L.} and Mandelblatt, {Jeanne S.} and {De Koning}, {Harry J.} and Karla Kerlikowske and Lehman, {Constance D.} and Tosteson, {Anna N A}",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "3",
doi = "10.7326/M14-0692",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "162",
pages = "157--166",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts

AU - Sprague, Brian L.

AU - Stout, Natasha K.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.

AU - Cevik, Mucahit

AU - Alagoz, Oguzhan

AU - Lee, Christoph I.

AU - Van Den Broek, Jeroen J.

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L.

AU - Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.

AU - De Koning, Harry J.

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Lehman, Constance D.

AU - Tosteson, Anna N A

PY - 2015/2/3

Y1 - 2015/2/3

N2 - Background: Many states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness. Objective: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Design: Comparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature. Target Population: Contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Payer. Intervention: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result. Outcome Measures: Breast cancer deaths averted, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Supplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a falsepositive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325 000 per QALY gained (range, $112 000 to $766 000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246 000 per QALY gained (range, $74 000 to $535 000). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age. Limitation: Provider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered. Conclusion: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits.

AB - Background: Many states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness. Objective: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Design: Comparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature. Target Population: Contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Payer. Intervention: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result. Outcome Measures: Breast cancer deaths averted, qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Supplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a falsepositive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325 000 per QALY gained (range, $112 000 to $766 000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246 000 per QALY gained (range, $74 000 to $535 000). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age. Limitation: Provider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered. Conclusion: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922704709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922704709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/M14-0692

DO - 10.7326/M14-0692

M3 - Article

VL - 162

SP - 157

EP - 166

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 3

ER -