Abstract:BACKGROUND. Ultrasound may be sufficient in the diagnostic evaluation of many noncalcified lesions recalled from screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). In some scenarios, omission of diagnostic mammography can save health care costs. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy of performing ultrasound first versus diagnostic mammography first in the diagnostic evaluation of noncalcified lesions recalled from screening DBT. METHODS. Decision tree analysis was performed to compare ultrasound first versus diagnostic mammography first in the diagnostic evaluation of DBT-recalled noncalcified lesions from a U.S. health care system perspective with a 40-year horizon. The analysis used probabilities and prevalence information from published single-institution prospective data, additional literature-derived estimates of diagnostic test performance, and Medicare-allowable reimbursement rates. Health states were represented in a Markov chain model. For each strategy, the total cost and effectiveness (expressed in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were estimated. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net monetary benefit, with use of a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate the impact of different input parameters, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulations was conducted to estimate the impact of combined uncertainty across parameters. RESULTS. In the base-case scenario, for diagnostic evaluation of DBT-recalled noncalcified lesions, a strategy of performing ultrasound first versus diagnostic mammography first resulted in more cost savings (total cost, US$17,672 vs US$18,323) and greater cost-effectiveness (QALYs, 23.1309 vs 23.1306) over the 40-year horizon. The ultrasound-first strategy resulted in an ICER of -2,170,000 (expressed as U.S. dollars per QALY) and an incremental net monetary benefit of US$681 versus the diagnostic mammography-first strategy. Therefore, performing ultrasound first was deemed the more cost-effective strategy at the WTP threshold. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the most important driver of cost-effectiveness was lost utility from delayed diagnosis, followed by the relative sensitivities of ultrasound and diagnostic mammography. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ultrasound first was the better strategy in 93.0% of iterations. CONCLUSION. A strategy of performing ultrasound first, with or without diagnostic mammography, is more cost-effective than a traditional strategy of conducting diagnostic mammography first. CLINICAL IMPACT. This cost-effectiveness analysis supports the growing prioritization of ultrasound as the primary method for evaluating DBT-recalled noncalcified lesions.

Feasibility study comparing synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography for simulated first round screening in a single BreastScreen NSW centre

Effectiveness of hybrid digital breast tomosynthesis/digital mammography compared to digital mammography in women presenting for routine screening at Maroondah BreastScreen: Study protocol for a co-designed, non-randomised prospective trial

Cost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norway

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D) in breast cancer screening is associated with higher cancer detection and lower recalls compared to digital mammography (DM) alone: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Assessing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Impact on Early Cancer Detection: Insights from Consecutive Screening

Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full‐field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Breast Cancers Detected during a Decade of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Comparison with Digital Mammography

Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging

Introduction of one-view tomosynthesis in population-based mammography screening: Impact on detection rate, interval cancer rate and false-positive rate

Synthetic 2D Mammography Versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Synthesized Two-Dimensional Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography Alone or in Combination with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Can Radiologists Replace Digital 2D Mammography with Synthetic 2D Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, or Are Both Still Needed?

Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Cost-Effectiveness of an Ultrasound-First Strategy in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Noncalcified Lesions Recalled From Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Breast cancer stage and size detected with film versus digital mammography in New South Wales, Australia: a population-based study using routinely collected data

Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised images versus standard full-field digital mammography in population-based screening (TOSYMA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Improves Early Breast Cancer Detection and Survival in Taiwan

Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium

Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting

How long does it take to read a mammogram? investigating the reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography