ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Cost-Effectiveness of MR-Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Extremely Dense Breasts After Two Rounds of Screening.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- Socioeconomic impact of artificial intelligence-driven point-of-care testing devices for liquid biopsy in the OncoCheck system.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of contrast-enhanced breast MRI in suspicious mammographic microcalcifications.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Management of Non-Mass Enhancement at Breast Magnetic Resonance in Screening Settings Referred for Magnetic Resonance-Guided Biopsy.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography (MRM) vs. x-ray based mammography (XM) in two-yearly screening women of intermediate risk for breast cancer in the light of recent literature.
methodsDecision analysis and Markov modelling were used to compare cumulative costs (in US-$) and outcomes (in QALYs) of MRM vs. XM over the model runtime of 20 years. The perspective of the U.S. healthcare system was selected. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated and related to a willingness to pay-threshold of $ 100,000 per QALY in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of variations of the input parameters. In particular, variations of the rate of false positive findings beyond the first screening round and their impact on cost-effectiveness were assessed.
resultsBreast cancer screening with MRM resulted in increased costs and superior effectiveness. Cumulative average costs of $ 6,081 per woman and cumulative effects of 15.12 QALYs were determined for MRM, whereas screening with XM resulted in costs of $ 5,810 and 15.10 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $ 13,493 per QALY gained. When the specificity of MRM in the second and subsequent screening rounds was varied from 92% to 99%, the ICER resulted in a range from $ 38,849 to $ 5,062 per QALY.
conclusionsBased on most recent data on the diagnostic performance beyond the first screening round, MRM may remain the economically preferable alternative in screening women of intermediate risk for breast cancer due to their dense breast tissue.
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.