Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov 2;113(11):1476-1483.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab119.

Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening for Women With Extremely Dense Breast Tissue

H Amarens Geuzinge  1 , Marije F Bakker  2 , Eveline A M Heijnsdijk  1 , Nicolien T van Ravesteyn  1 , Wouter B Veldhuis  3 , Ruud M Pijnappel  3 , Stéphanie V de Lange  2   3 , Marleen J Emaus  3 , Ritse M Mann  4   5 , Evelyn M Monninkhof  2 , Petra K de Koekkoek-Doll  5 , Carla H van Gils  2 , Harry J de Koning  1 ; DENSE trial study group
Affiliations

Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening for Women With Extremely Dense Breast Tissue

H Amarens Geuzinge et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Abstract

Background: Extremely dense breast tissue is associated with increased breast cancer risk and limited sensitivity of mammography. The DENSE trial showed that additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening in women with extremely dense breasts resulted in a substantial reduction in interval cancers. The cost-effectiveness of MRI screening for these women is unknown.

Methods: We used the MISCAN-breast microsimulation model to simulate several screening protocols containing mammography and/or MRI to estimate long-term effects and costs. The model was calibrated using results of the DENSE trial and adjusted to incorporate decreases in breast density with increasing age. Screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women ages 50-75 years. Outcomes were numbers of breast cancers, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), breast cancer deaths, and overdiagnosis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated (3% discounting), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000.

Results: Calibration resulted in a conservative fit of the model regarding MRI detection. Both strategies of the DENSE trial were dominated (biennial mammography; biennial mammography plus MRI). MRI alone every 4 years was cost-effective with €15 620 per QALY. Screening every 3 years with MRI alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €37 181 per QALY. All strategies with mammography and/or a 2-year interval were dominated because other strategies resulted in more additional QALYs per additional euro. Alternating mammography and MRI every 2 years was close to the efficiency frontier.

Conclusions: MRI screening is cost-effective for women with extremely dense breasts, when applied at a 4-year interval. For a willingness to pay more than €22 000 per QALY gained, MRI at a 3-year interval is cost-effective as well.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Efficiency frontier (3% discounting). 2MRI = MRI every 2 years; 3MRI = MRI every 3 years; 4MRI = MRI every 4 years; 5MRI = MRI every 5 years; 2 Mx = mammography every 2 years; 2 Mx/MRI = screening every 2 years with alternating mammography and MRI; 2 Mx_2MRI = MRI and mammography every 2 years; 2 Mx_4MRI = mammography every 2 years and MRI every 4 years; 4 Mx_2MRI = mammography every 4 years and MRI every 2 years; 6 Mx_2MRI = mammography every 6 years and MRI every 2 years. MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; QALY = quality-adjusted life year.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Wanders JO, Holland K, Veldhuis WB, et al. Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;162(1):95–103. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Price ER, Hargreaves J, Lipson JA, et al. The California breast density information group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation. Radiology. 2013;269(3):887–892. - PubMed
    1. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–236. - PubMed
    1. Kerlikowske K. The mammogram that cried Wolfe. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):297–300. - PubMed
    1. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D.. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(9):671–679. - PubMed

Publication types