IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v20y2019i8d10.1007_s10198-019-01094-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Tron Anders Moger

    (University of Oslo)

  • Jayson O. Swanson

    (University of Oslo)

  • Åsne Sørlien Holen

    (Cancer Registry of Norway)

  • Berit Hanestad

    (Haukeland University Hospital)

  • Solveig Hofvind

    (Cancer Registry of Norway
    Oslo Metropolitan University)

Abstract

Background Several studies in Europe and the US have shown promising results favouring digital breast tomosynthesis compared to standard digital mammography (DM). However, the costs of implementing the technology in screening programmes are not yet known. Methods A randomised controlled trial comparing the results from digital breast tomosynthesis including synthetic mammograms (DBT) vs. DM was performed in Bergen during 2016 and 2017 as a part of BreastScreen Norway. The trial included 29,453 women and allowed for a detailed comparison of procedure use and screening, recall and treatment costs estimated at the individual level. Results The increased cost of equipment, examination and reading time with DBT vs. DM was €8.5 per screened woman (95% CI 8.4−8.6). Costs of DBT remained significantly higher after adding recall assessment costs, €6.2 (95% CI 4.6−7.9). Substantial reductions in either examination and reading times, price of DBT equipment or price of IT storage and connectivity did not change the conclusion. Adding treatment costs resulted in too wide confidence intervals to draw definitive conclusions (additional costs of tomosynthesis €9.8, 95% CI –56 to 74). Performing biopsy at recall, radiation therapy and chemotherapy was significantly more frequent among women screened with DBT. Conclusion The results showed lower incremental costs of DBT vs. DM, compared to what is found in previous cost analyses of DBT and DM. However, the incremental costs were still higher for DBT compared with DM after including recall costs. Further studies with long-term treatment data are needed to understand the complete costs of implementing DBT in screening.

Suggested Citation

  • Tron Anders Moger & Jayson O. Swanson & Åsne Sørlien Holen & Berit Hanestad & Solveig Hofvind, 2019. "Cost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norway," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1261-1269, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01094-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01094-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-019-01094-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-019-01094-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giulia Bicchierai & Federica Di Naro & Diego De Benedetto & Diletta Cozzi & Silvia Pradella & Vittorio Miele & Jacopo Nori, 2021. "A Review of Breast Imaging for Timely Diagnosis of Disease," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-16, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Screening; Costs; Breast cancer; Mammography; Tomosynthesis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01094-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.