Evidence Hub

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

Moger TA, Swanson JO, Holen ÅS, Hanestad B, Hofvind S

The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2019

29,453 participants · 11 citations

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 29,453 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free