Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30632645›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2019

Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis.

Victoria L Mango, Akshay Goel, Eralda Mema, Ellie Kwak, Richard Ha

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Overcoming Barriers in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Management: From Overtreatment to Optimal Treatment.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  20. Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of prostate cancer: promise and caution.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria L MangoDepartment of Radiology, Breast and Imaging Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1844-7965
Akshay GoelDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Eralda MemaDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Ellie KwakDepartment of Radiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Richard HaDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening high-risk women for breast cancer with MRI is cost-effective, with increasing cost-effectiveness paralleling increasing risk. However, for average-risk women cost is considered a major limitation to mass screening with MRI. PURPOSE: To perform a cost-benefit analysis of a simulated breast cancer screening program for average-risk women comparing MRI with mammography. STUDY TYPE: Population simulation study. POPULATION/SUBJECTS: Five million (M) hypothetical women undergoing breast cancer screening. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Simulation based primarily on Kuhl et al ASSESSMENT: A Monte Carlo simulation utilizing Medicare reimbursement rates to calculate input variable costs was developed to compare 5M women undergoing breast cancer screening with either triennial MRI or annual mammography, 2.5M in each group, over 30 years. STATISTICAL TESTS: Expected recall rates, BI-RADS 3, BI-RADS 4/5 cases and cancer detection rates were determined from published literature with calculated aggregate costs including resultant diagnostic/follow-up imaging and biopsies.

resultsBaseline screening of 2.5M women with breast MRI cost $1.6 billion (B), 3× higher than baseline mammography screening ($0.54B). With subsequent screening, MRI screening is more cost-effective than mammography screening in 24 years ($13.02B vs. $13.03B). MRI screening program costs are largely driven by cost per MRI exam ($549.71). A second simulation model was performed based on MRI Medicare reimbursement trends using a lower MRI cost ($400). This yielded a cost-effective benefit compared to mammography screening in less than 6 years ($3.41B vs. $3.65B), with over a 22% cost reduction relative to mammography screening in 12 years and reaching a 38% reduction in 30 years. DATA

conclusionDespite higher initial cost of a breast MRI screening program for average-risk women, there is ultimately a cost savings over time compared with mammography. This estimate is conservative given cost-benefit of additional/earlier breast cancers detected by breast MRI were not accounted for. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiopsyBreastBreast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMass ScreeningMedicareMiddle AgedMonte Carlo Methodbreast MRIcancer screeninginformatics

Identifiers

PMID30632645
PMCPMC7478848
OpenAlexW2909275205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.