ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2026
Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography for women with extremely dense breasts in a national breast cancer screening program: a micro-simulation study.
Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtremely dense breast tissue is associated with increased breast cancer risk and reduced sensitivity of digital mammography (DM). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus DM for screening women with extremely dense breasts.
methodsThis micro-simulation study applied the validated SimRisc Breast model. Screening strategies included biennial supplemental full-protocol MRI (FP-MRI), supplemental AB-MRI, supplemental CEM, AB-MRI alone and CEM alone, with biennial DM (ages 50-74) as reference. Costs and life-years gained (LYG) were discounted at 3%. Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were calculated versus the reference, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for pairwise comparisons. A willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per LYG was applied.
resultsCompared with the reference, all alternative screening strategies increased cancer detection and LYG, while reducing interval cancers and breast cancer deaths. CEM alone and supplemental CEM slightly increased in radiation-induced tumors. In cost-effectiveness analysis, supplemental AB-MRI and supplemental FP-MRI were not favorable (ACERs of €24,700-€34,400 per LYG), whereas CEM alone, AB-MRI alone, and supplemental CEM were cost-effective (ACERs €13,400-€19,600 per LYG). Incremental comparisons indicated that all supplemental strategies were dominated, with CEM alone optimal (ICER €13,400 per LYG vs. reference) and AB-MRI alone at €49,400 per LYG relative to CEM alone.
conclusionBoth AB-MRI and CEM could reduce breast cancer mortality through earlier detection, with low additional risks and reasonable incremental costs. Among the modeled strategies, CEM was estimated to be the most cost-effective, although further prospective clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.