Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Carla Guerriero (1)
  Maureen GC Gillan (2)
  John Cairns (1)
  Matthew G Wallis (3)
  Fiona J Gilbert (2)
  
• 刊名：BMC Health Services Research
• 出版年：2011
• 出版时间：December 2011
• 年：2011
• 卷：11
• 期：1
• 全文大小：296KB
• 参考文献：1. NHS Breast Screening Programme & Association of Breast Surgery at BASO (2008): An audit of screen detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2007 to March 2008. [http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/ba07-08.html]
  2. NHS Breast Screening Programme (2008): Breast and cervical screening: the first 20 years. [http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/nhscsp-20years.pdf]
  3. NHS Breast Screening Programme: Annual review. [http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp-annualreview2008.pdf] / Sheffield. UK 2008.
  4. Astley S, Gilbert FJ: Computer-Aided Detection in Mammography. / Clinical Radiology 2004, 59: 390-99. j.crad.2003.11.017">CrossRef
  5. Taylor P, Champness J, Given-Wilson R, Johnston K, Potts H: Impact of computer-aided detection prompts on the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography. / Health Technol Assess 2005, 9 (6) : 1-8. iii
  6. Griffiths CE: Breast screening radiographers and radiologists: performance and confidence levels on the PERFORMS film sets. / Breast Cancer Res 2004, 6 (Suppl 1) : P10. CrossRef
  7. Helvie MA, Hadjiiski L, Makariou E, / et al.: Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial. / Radiology 2004, 231: 208-14. CrossRef
  8. Birdwell RL: The Preponderance of Evidence Supports Computer-aided Detection for Screening Mammography. / Radiology 2009, 253: 9-6. CrossRef
  9. Philpotts LE: Can Computer-aided Detection Be Detrimental to Mammographic Interpretation? / Radiology 2009, 253: 17-2. CrossRef
  10. Houssami N, Given-Wilson R, Ciatto S: Early detection of breast cancer: Overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening. / Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 2009, 53: 171-. j.1754-9485.2009.02062.x">CrossRef
  11. Taylor P, Potts HWW: Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: Two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. / European Journal of Cancer 2008, 44: 798-07. j.ejca.2008.02.016">CrossRef
  12. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG, Agbaje OF, Wallis MG, James J, Boggis CR, Duffy SW, the CADET II Group: Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. / N Engl J Med 2008, 359: 1675-684. CrossRef
  13. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM: 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 1998, 5: 195-01.
  14. Blanks RG, Given-Wilson RM, Moss SM: Efficiency of cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening: Two versus one view mammography. / J Med Screen 1998, 5: 141-45.
  15. Department of Health: Cancer Reform Strategy 2007. [http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_081007.pdf]
  16. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Updated guide to the methods of technology appraisal. [jsp?domedia=1&mid=B52851A3-19B9-E0B5-D48284D172BD8459" class="a-plus-plus">http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/guidetothemethodsoftechnologyappraisal.jsp?domedia=1&mid=B52851A3-19B9-E0B5-D48284D172BD8459] NICE; 2008.
  17. The NHS Information Centre: Breast Screening Programme, England 2007-8. [http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/screening/breast-cancer/breast-screening-programme-england-2007-08] NHS Information Centre; 2009.
  18. Nickerson C, Cush S: New ways of working in the NHS Breast Screening Programme. Fifth Report on Implementation. / NHS Cancer Screening Programmes 2008.
  19. Curtis L: Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2008. [http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc/uc2008/uc2008.pdf] / Personal Social Service Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury 2008.
  20. Information Centre for Health and Social Care: NHS Staff Earnings Estimates, October to December 2007. [http://www.ic.nhs.uk/default.asp?sID=1204128005603] / NHS Information Centre 2008.
  21. Cole JA, Lawinski CP, Clinch PJ, Emerton DP, Mackenzie A: / Cost-Effectiveness of full field digital mammography (FFDM) and computed radiography (CR) versus film/screen imaging for mammography. Centre for Evidence based Purchasing 08015 NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency; 2008.
  22. Taylor P, Wilson S, Potts H, Wilkinson L, Khoo L, Given-Wilson R: Evaluation of CAD with Full Field Digital Mammography in the NHS Breast Screening Programme. In / NHSBSP Equipment Report 0910. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield; 2009.
  23. Drummond M, O'Brien BJ, Torrance G, Stoddart G: / Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Second edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1997.
  24. NHS Breast Screening Programme &Association of Breast Surgery at BASO: An Audit of screen detected breast cancers for the year of screening. April 2008 to March 2010. / NHS Cancer Screening Programmes 19th May 2010. York
  25. Griebrsh I, Brown J, Boggis C, Dixon A, Dixon M, Easton D, Eeles R, Evans DG, Gilbert FJ, Hawnaur J, Kessar P, Lakhani SR, Moss SM, Nerurkar A, Padhani AR, Pointon LJ, Potterton J, Thompson D, Turnbull LW, Walker LG, Warren R, Leach MO, / et al.: Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. / British Journal of Cancer 2006, 95: 801-10. j.bjc.6603356">CrossRef
  26. NHS Information Centre: Breast Screening Programme England 2008-9: Women screened by age, SHA and outcome. Table 7 & 7a. [http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/screening/breast-screening/breast-screening-programme-england-2008-09]
  27. Madan J, Radwin A, Stevenson M, Tappenden P: A Rapid-Response Economic Evaluation of the UK NHS Cancer Reform Strategy Breast Cancer Screening Program Extension via a Plausible Bounds Approach. / Value in Health 2010, 13: 215-21. j.1524-4733.2009.00667.x">CrossRef
  28. Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing Economic report: Computer-aided detection in Mammography CEPP09040. / NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency 2009.
  29. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K: / Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press; 2008.
  30. Taylor P, Given-Wilson RM: Evaluation of computer-aided detection (CAD) devices. / Br J Radiol 2005, 78 (Spec No 1) : S26-0. jr/84545410">CrossRef
  31. Lindfors KK, McGahan MC, Rosenquist CJ, Hurlock GS: Computer-aided detection of breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness study. / Radiology 2006, 239: 710-. CrossRef
  32. Haygood TM, Wang T, Atkinson EN, Lane D, Stephens TW, Patel P, Whitman GJ: Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screening mammograms. / AJR 2009, 192: 216-20. CrossRef
  33. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, Barke L, Reddy D, Wolfman J, Segal L, DeLeon P, Benjamin S, Willis L: Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. / AJR 2005, 187: 38-1. CrossRef
  34. Matthew Wallis, Cambridge Breast Unit, personal communication based on a survey for the Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group 2004/5 and 2005/6
  35. S Taylor-Phillips, Loughborough University, personal communication
  36. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, can Engen R, Bartels-Kortland A, Broeders MJ: Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening programme. / Radiology 2009, 253: 353-. CrossRef
  37. Cockburn J, Staples M, Hurley SF, De Luise T: Psychological consequences of screening mammography. / Journal of Medical Screening 1994, 1: 7-2.
  38. Gilbert FJ, Cordiner CM, Affleck IR, Hood DB, Mathieson D, Walker LG: Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false-positive recall on women with and without a family history of breast cancer. / European J Cancer 1998, 34: 2010-014. CrossRef
  39. Malich A, Fisher DR, Bottcher J: CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments. / Eur Radiol 2006, 16: 1449-460. CrossRef
  40. Krupinski EA: Computer Aided detection in clinical environment: benefits and challenges for radiologists. / Radiology 2004, 231: 7-. CrossRef
  41. Astley SM, Chasser C, Qarteman C, Hillier VF, Gilbert F, Boggis C: The impact of reader training on computer-aided detection in mammography. In / Proceeding Seventh International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Edited by: Pisano E. Chapel Hill NC; 2004:140.
  42. Cairns JA, Van Der Pol M: Cost effectiveness of non-consensus double reading. / The Breast 1998, 7: 243-. CrossRef
  43. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/11/11/prepub
  
• 作者单位：Carla Guerriero (1)
  Maureen GC Gillan (2)
  John Cairns (1)
  Matthew G Wallis (3)
  Fiona J Gilbert (2)
  
  1. Health Service Research and Policy Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  2. Aberdeen Biomedical Imaging Centre, Lilian Sutton Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
  3. Cambridge Breast Unit and Biomedical Research Institute, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK
  

文摘

Background Single reading with computer aided detection (CAD) is an alternative to double reading for detecting cancer in screening mammograms. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of a single reader with CAD is more cost-effective than double reading. Methods Based on data from the CADET II study, the cost-effectiveness of single reading with CAD versus double reading was measured in terms of cost per cancer detected. Cost (Pound (￡), year 2007/08) of single reading with CAD versus double reading was estimated assuming a health and social service perspective and a 7 year time horizon. As the equipment cost varies according to the unit size a separate analysis was conducted for high, average and low volume screening units. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the reading time, equipment and assessment cost, recall rate and reader qualification. Results CAD is cost increasing for all sizes of screening unit. The introduction of CAD is cost-increasing compared to double reading because the cost of CAD equipment, staff training and the higher assessment cost associated with CAD are greater than the saving in reading costs. The introduction of single reading with CAD, in place of double reading, would produce an additional cost of ￡227 and ￡253 per 1,000 women screened in high and average volume units respectively. In low volume screening units, the high cost of purchasing the equipment will results in an additional cost of ￡590 per 1,000 women screened. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the factors having the greatest effect on the cost-effectiveness of CAD with single reading compared with double reading were the reading time and the reader's professional qualification (radiologist versus advanced practitioner). Conclusions Without improvements in CAD effectiveness (e.g. a decrease in the recall rate) CAD is unlikely to be a cost effective alternative to double reading for mammography screening in UK. This study provides updated estimates of CAD costs in a full-field digital system and assessment cost for women who are re-called after initial screening. However, the model is highly sensitive to various parameters e.g. reading time, reader qualification, and equipment cost.