Cost-Effectiveness of Double Reading Versus Single Reading of Mammograms in a Breast Cancer Screening Programme

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2016 Jul 27

PMID 27459663

Citations 12

Authors

Margarita Posso

Misericordia Carles

Montserrat Rue

Teresa Puig

Xavier Bonfill

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The usual practice in breast cancer screening programmes for mammogram interpretation is to perform double reading. However, little is known about its cost-effectiveness in the context of digital mammography. Our purpose was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of digital mammograms in a population-based breast cancer screening programme.

Methods: Data from 28,636 screened women was used to establish a decision-tree model and to compare three strategies: 1) double reading; 2) double reading for women in their first participation and single reading for women in their subsequent participations; and 3) single reading. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was defined as the expected cost per one additionally detected cancer. We performed a deterministic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the ICER.

Results: The detection rate of double reading (5.17‰) was similar to that of single reading (4.78‰; P = .768). The mean cost of each detected cancer was €8,912 for double reading and €8,287 for single reading. The ICER of double reading versus single reading was €16,684. The sensitivity analysis showed variations in the ICER according to the sensitivity of reading strategies. The strategy that combines double reading in first participation with single reading in subsequent participations was ruled out due to extended dominance.

Conclusions: From our results, double reading appears not to be a cost-effective strategy in the context of digital mammography. Double reading would eventually be challenged in screening programmes, as single reading might entail important net savings without significantly changing the cancer detection rate. These results are not conclusive and should be confirmed in prospective studies that investigate long-term outcomes like quality adjusted life years (QALYs).

Citing Articles

Misdiagnosis in breast imaging: a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)-Part 2: Main causes of errors in breast imaging and recommendations from European Society of Breast Imaging to limit misdiagnosis.

Thomassin-Naggara I, Athanasiou A, Kilburn-Toppin F, Forrai G, Ispas M, Lesaru M Eur Radiol. 2024; .

PMID: 39545979 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11133-4.

Artificial Intelligence Algorithm for Subclinical Breast Cancer Detection.

Gjesvik J, Moshina N, Lee C, Miglioretti D, Hofvind S JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(10):e2437402.

PMID: 39361281 PMC: 11450515. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.37402.

A Breast Cancer Image Classification Algorithm with 2c Multiclass Support Vector Machine.

Wajeed M, Tiwari S, Gupta R, Ahmad A, Agarwal S, Jamal S J Healthc Eng. 2023; 2023:3875525.

PMID: 37457494 PMC: 10349674. DOI: 10.1155/2023/3875525.

Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies.

Muhlberger N, Sroczynski G, Gogollari A, Jahn B, Pashayan N, Steyerberg E Eur J Health Econ. 2021; 22(8):1311-1344.

PMID: 34342797 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01338-5.

Studying human-AI collaboration protocols: the case of the Kasparov's law in radiological double reading.

Cabitza F, Campagner A, Sconfienza L Health Inf Sci Syst. 2021; 9(1):8.

PMID: 33585029 PMC: 7864624. DOI: 10.1007/s13755-021-00138-8.

References

Taylor P, Potts H . Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44(6):798-807. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.016. View

Comas M, Arrospide A, Mar J, Sala M, Vilaprinyo E, Hernandez C . Budget impact analysis of switching to digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: a discrete event simulation model. PLoS One. 2014; 9(5):e97459. PMC: 4022526. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097459. View

Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum J, Acharyya S . Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(17):1773-83. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911. View

Bargallo X, Santamaria G, Del Amo M, Arguis P, Rios J, Grau J . Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83(11):2019-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.08.010. View

Hofvind S, Geller B, Rosenberg R, Skaane P . Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2009; 253(3):652-60. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2533090210. View

Blanks R, Wallis M, Moss S . A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen. 1999; 5(4):195-201. DOI: 10.1136/jms.5.4.195. View

Broeders M, Moss S, Nystrom L, Njor S, Jonsson H, Paap E . The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen. 2012; 19 Suppl 1:14-25. DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.012078. View

Blanch J, Sala M, Roman M, Ederra M, Salas D, Zubizarreta R . Cumulative risk of cancer detection in breast cancer screening by protocol strategy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 138(3):869-77. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2458-5. View

Taplin S, Rutter C, Elmore J, Seger D, White D, Brenner R . Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174(5):1257-62. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.174.5.1741257. View

10.

Harvey S, Geller B, Oppenheimer R, Pinet M, Riddell L, Garra B . Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180(5):1461-7. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801461. View

11.

Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Bonardi R, Catarzi S, Risso G, Del Turco M . Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. Results in the Florence screening programme. J Med Screen. 2005; 12(2):103-6. DOI: 10.1258/0969141053908285. View

12.

Taplin S, Abraham L, Barlow W, Fenton J, Berns E, Carney P . Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100(12):876-87. PMC: 2430588. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn172. View

13.

Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L . European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol. 2007; 19(4):614-22. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdm481. View

14.

Varela C, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks J, Holland R . Use of prior mammograms in the classification of benign and malignant masses. Eur J Radiol. 2005; 56(2):248-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.04.007. View

15.

Guerriero C, Gillan M, Cairns J, Wallis M, Gilbert F . Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011; 11:11. PMC: 3032650. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-11. View

16.

Vilaprinyo E, Forne C, Carles M, Sala M, Pla R, Castells X . Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer. PLoS One. 2014; 9(2):e86858. PMC: 3911927. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086858. View

17.

Thurfjell E . Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading. Acta Radiol. 1994; 35(4):345-50. View

18.

Azavedo E, Zackrisson S, Mejare I, Heibert Arnlind M . Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review. BMC Med Imaging. 2012; 12:22. PMC: 3464719. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2342-12-22. View

19.

Klompenhouwer E, Voogd A, den Heeten G, Strobbe L, de Haan A, Wauters C . Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2015; 51(3):391-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008. View

20.

Paulden M, OMahony J, Culyer A, McCabe C . Some inconsistencies in NICE's consideration of social values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32(11):1043-53. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0204-4. View