Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-effectiveness analysis for breast cancer screening: double reading versus single + CAD reading

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Computer-aided detection (CAD) increases breast cancer detection, but its cost-effectiveness is unknown for breast cancer screening in Japan. We aimed to determine whether screening mammography diagnosed by one physician using CAD is cost-effective when compared with the standard double reading by two physicians.

Methods

We established our model with a decision tree and Markov model concept based on feasible screening and clinical pathways, combined with prognosis of the health state transition of breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness analysis between double reading by two readers and single reading with CAD by one reader was performed from a social perspective in terms of the expected cost, life expectancy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The hypothetical population comprised 50-year-old female breast cancer screening examinees. Only direct medical costs related to breast cancer screening and treatment were considered. One simulation cycle was 2 years, and the annual discount rate was 3 %. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the robustness of the model and input data.

Results

Single reading with CAD increased expected costs by 2,704 yen and extended life expectancy by 0.0087 years compared with double reading. The ICER was 310,805 yen per life year gained, which is below the threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed that the sensitivity and specificity of CAD and the number of breast cancer screening examinees greatly affected the results.

Conclusions

Single reading using CAD in mammography screening is more cost-effective than double reading, although the results are highly sensitive to the sensitivity and specificity of CAD and the numbers of examinees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kawai M, Kuriyama S, Suzuki A, Nishino Y, Ishida T, Ohnuki K, et al. Effect of screening mammography on breast cancer survival in comparison to other detection methods: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer Sci. 2009;100(8):1479–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Okubo I, Glick H, Frumkin H, Eisenberg JM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mass screening for breast cancer in Japan. Cancer. 1991;67(8):2021–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ohnuki K, Kuriyama S, Shoji N, Nishino Y, Tsuji I, Ohuchi N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening modalities for breast cancer in Japan with special reference to women aged 40–49 years. Cancer Sci. 2006;97(11):1242–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Guerriero C, Gillan MG, Cairns J, Wallis MG, Gilbert FJ. Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ganjoho.jp. City cancer screening rate. 2010. http://ganjoho.jp/professional/statistics/statistics.html. Cited 2012 07/20

  6. Nawano S. Teamwork between Physician and CAD. J Comput Aided Diagn Med Images. 2005;45:10–1.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yabuuchi H, Kamiya T, Matsuo Y, Setouchi T, Sakai S, Hatanaka M, et al. The role of computer-aided detection (CAD) for cancer diagnosis. Med Imaging Technol. 2008;25(1):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, Abraham L, Sickles EA, D’Orsi C, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(14):1399–409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tanaka T, Nitta N, Ohta S, Kobayashi T, Kano A, Tsuchiya K, et al. Evaluation of computer-aided detection of lesions in mammograms obtained with a digital phase-contrast mammography system. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(12):2886–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fenton JJ, Abraham L, Taplin SH, Geller BM, Carney PA, D’Orsi C, et al. Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(15):1152–61.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. The JS, Schilling KJ, Hoffmeister JW, Friedmann E, McGinnis R, Holcomb RG. Detection of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography and computer-aided detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):337–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuroki Y. Computer aided detection (CAD) for digital mammography: a retrospective reading study for consideration on utilizing CAD most effectively. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2008;5116:449–53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. The National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. The guideline for medical device evaluation from Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan. 2010. p. 1–6.

  14. Lindfors KK, McGahan MC, Rosenquist CJ, Hurlock GS. Computer-aided detection of breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness study. Radiology. 2006;239(3):710–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13(4):322–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 278–322.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 140–59.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Suzuki A, Kuriyama S, Kawai M, Amari M, Takeda M, Ishida T, et al. Age-specific interval breast cancers in Japan: estimation of the proper sensitivity of screening using a population-based cancer registry. Cancer Sci. 2008;99(11):2264–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eadie LH, Taylor P, Gibson AP. A systematic review of computer-assisted diagnosis in diagnostic cancer imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(1):e70–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. TeamNET. Gan Chiryo-hi.com. 2008. http://www.ganchiryohi.com/. Cited 2012 04/26

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ikegami N, Nishimura S. Healthcare technology and drug. In: Health economics and policy, vol. 4. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo; 2005. p. 88–90.

  22. Ohkusa Y, Sugawara T. Research for willingness to pay for one QALY gain. Iryo Syakai. 2006;16(2):157–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ohnuki K, Tsuji I, Ohuchi N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of annual breast cancer screening in Japan. J Jpn Assoc Breast Cancer Screen. 1997;6(2):145–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Japan strategic anti-cancer randomized trial (J-START). The 3rd term comprehensive control research for cancer (Old: H18-Sanjigan-senryaku-001) (New: H23-Sanjigan-shitei-002) from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan. 2010. p. 122.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a research grant from the Institute for Health Economics and Policy. We are greatly appreciative of Prof. James Kahn at the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Makoto Kobayashi from CRECON Research and Consulting Inc. for their advice on our model construction and modeling analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Imaging, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8575, Japan

    Miho Sato & Tadashi Ishibashi

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8574, Japan

    Masaaki Kawai & Noriaki Ohuchi

  3. Division of Community Health, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8575, Japan

    Masaaki Kawai

  4. Miyagi Cancer Center Research Institute, 47-1 Aza-Nodayama, Medeshimasiote, Natori, Miyagi, 981-1293, Japan

    Yoshikazu Nishino

  5. Miyagi Cancer Society, 5-7-30 Kamisugi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-0011, Japan

    Daisuke Shibuya

Authors
  1. Miho Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masaaki Kawai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yoshikazu Nishino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daisuke Shibuya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Noriaki Ohuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tadashi Ishibashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tadashi Ishibashi.

About this article

Cite this article

Sato, M., Kawai, M., Nishino, Y. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis for breast cancer screening: double reading versus single + CAD reading. Breast Cancer 21, 532–541 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0423-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0423-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation