Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWang, Jing
dc.contributor.authorPhi, Xuan-Anh
dc.contributor.authorGreuter, Marcel J. W
dc.contributor.authorDaszczuk, Alicja M.
dc.contributor.authorFeenstra, Talitha L.
dc.contributor.authorPijnappel, Ruud M.
dc.contributor.authorVermeulen, Karin M.
dc.contributor.authorBuls, Nico
dc.contributor.authorHoussami, Nehmat
dc.contributor.authorLu, Wenli
dc.contributor.authorde Bock, Geertruida H.
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-27T05:22:57Z
dc.date.available2023-02-27T05:22:57Z
dc.date.issued2020en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/30123
dc.description.abstractObjectives To evaluate at which sensitivity digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would become cost-effective compared to digital mammography (DM) in a population breast cancer screening program, given a constant estimate of specificity. Methods In a microsimulation model, the cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for women aged 50–75 was simulated for three scenarios: DBT for women with dense breasts and DM for women with fatty breasts (scenario 1), DBT for the whole population (scenario 2) or maintaining DM screening (reference). For DM, sensitivity was varied depending on breast density from 65 to 87%, and for DBT from 65 to 100%. The specificity was set at 96.5% for both DM and DBT. Direct medical costs were considered, including screening, biopsy and treatment costs. Scenarios were considered to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below €20,000 per life year gain (LYG). Results For both scenarios, the ICER was more favourable at increasing DBT sensitivity. Compared with DM screening, 0.8–10.2% more LYGs were found when DBT sensitivity was at least 75% for scenario 1, and 4.7–18.7% when DBT sensitivity was at least 80% for scenario 2. At €96 per DBT, scenario 1 was cost-effective at a DBT sensitivity of at least 90%, and at least 95% for scenario 2. At €80 per DBT, these values decreased to 80% and 90%, respectively. Conclusion DBT is more likely to be a cost-effective alternative to mammography in women with dense breasts. Whether DBT could be cost-effective in a general population highly depends on DBT costs.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherSpringer Linken_AU
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Radiologyen_AU
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0en_AU
dc.subjectBreast neoplasmsen_AU
dc.subjectCost-benefit analysisen_AU
dc.subjectMammographyen_AU
dc.subjectMass screeningen_AU
dc.subjectTomosynthesisen_AU
dc.titleThe cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening programen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00330-020-06812-x
dc.type.pubtypePublisher's versionen_AU
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::Sydney School of Public Healthen_AU
usyd.citation.volume30en_AU
usyd.citation.spage5437en_AU
usyd.citation.epage5445en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyYesen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

There are no files associated with this item.

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.