Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32729887›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2020

Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk.

H Amarens Geuzinge, Inge-Marie Obdeijn, Emiel J T Rutgers, Sepideh Saadatmand, Ritse M Mann, Jan C Oosterwijk, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Diderick B W de Roy van Zuidewijn, Marc B I Lobbes, Martijne van 't Riet and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Clinical Behavior of Breast Cancer in YoungJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Advances in Risk Management and Screening for Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer: The Role of MR Imaging and Personalised Approaches.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Maintaining accuracy and expanding access: evaluating the efficacy of the Botucatu Abbreviated Breast MRI Protocol.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

H Amarens GeuzingeDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Inge-Marie ObdeijnDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Emiel J T RutgersDepartment of Surgery, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sepideh SaadatmandDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jan C OosterwijkDepartment of Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.
Rob A E M TollenaarDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Diderick B W de Roy van ZuidewijnDepartment of Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.
Marc B I LobbesDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Martijne van 't RietDepartment of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, the Netherlands.
Maartje J HooningDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Margreet G E M AusemsDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Claudette E LooDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jelle WesselingDepartment of Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ernest J T LuitenDepartment of Surgery, Amphia Ziekenhuis, Breda, the Netherlands.
Harmien M ZonderlandDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Cees VerhoefDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Eveline A M HeijnsdijkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Madeleine M A Tilanus-LinthorstDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) Study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied. Interventions: Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography). Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied. Results: This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.

Indexed as

AdultBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedRisk FactorsTumor Suppressor Protein p53BRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, humanTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID32729887
PMCPMC7393584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.