ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014
Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for integrating MRI into breast cancer screening for women at high risk.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review Focusing on Methodology and Quality Assessment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of breast MRI in screening - a systematic review and basic approach to cost-effectiveness analyses.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance AmongFrontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Pooled it
- Personalized breast cancer screening strategies: A systematic review and quality assessment.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening - a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions.BMC health services research · 2017Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of AI-enhanced breast cancer screening in Iran: a microsimulation study.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Global burden and attributable risk factors of breast cancer in young women: historical trends from 1990 to 2019 and forecasts to 2030 by sociodemographic index regions and countries.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Children's Oncology Group Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Chest-Irradiated Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Cost-Sharing and Out-of-Pocket Cost for Women Who Received MRI for Breast Cancer Screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Observational
- Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of MR-Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Extremely Dense Breasts After Two Rounds of Screening.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Detecting Vasodilation as Potential Diagnostic Biomarker in Breast Cancer Using Deep Learning-Driven Thermomics.Biosensors · 2020Article
- Association of Retrospective Peer Review and Positive Predictive Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Needle Biopsies of Breast.European journal of breast health · 2019Article
- MARIA M4: clinical evaluation of a prototype ultrawideband radar scanner for breast cancer detection.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2016Article
- MRI screening for breast cancer in women at high risk; is the Australian breast MRI screening access program addressing the needs of women at high risk of breast cancer?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2015Review
- What Are the Recommended Timing and Screening Modalities in Women at Higher Risk for Developing Breast Cancer? A Clin-IQ.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2015Article
- Management of asymptomatic silicone-injected breast with reduction mammoplasty.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for women at high risk for breast cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies involving MRI.
methodsUsing a microsimulation model, we generated life histories under different risk profiles, and assessed the impact of screening on quality-adjusted life-years, and lifetime costs, both discounted at 3%. We compared 12 screening strategies combining annual or biennial MRI with mammography and clinical breast examination (CBE) in intervals of 0.5, 1, or 2 years vs without, and reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsBased on an ICER threshold of $100,000/QALY, the most cost-effective strategy for women at 25% lifetime risk was to stagger MRI and mammography plus CBE every year from age 30 to 74, yielding ICER $58,400 (compared to biennial MRI alone). At 50% lifetime risk and with 70% reduction in MRI cost, the recommended strategy was to stagger MRI and mammography plus CBE every 6 months (ICER=$84,400). At 75% lifetime risk, the recommended strategy is biennial MRI combined with mammography plus CBE every 6 months (ICER=$62,800).
conclusionsThe high costs of MRI and its lower specificity are limiting factors for annual screening schedule of MRI, except for women at sufficiently high risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.