Cost and cost-effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in Australia

被引:2
|
作者
Wang, Shuhong [1 ]
Merlin, Tracy [1 ]
Kreisz, Florian [1 ]
Craft, Paul [2 ]
Hiller, Janet E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Adelaide, AHTA, Sch Populat Hlth & Clin Practice, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
[2] Canberra Hosp, Med Oncol Unit, Canberra, ACT, Australia
关键词
cost; effectiveness; digital mammography; film-screen mammography; screening; breast cancer; BREAST-CANCER;
D O I
10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00424.x
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objective: A systematic review assessed the relative safety and effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography. This study utilised the evidence from the review to examine the economic value of digital compared with film-screen mammography in Australia. Methods: A cost-comparison analysis between the two technologies was conducted for the overall population for the purposes of breast cancer screening and diagnosis. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for the screening subgroups where digital mammography was considered to be more accurate than film-screen mammography. Results: Digital mammography in a screening setting is $11 more per examination than film-screen mammography, and $36 or $33 more per examination in a diagnostic setting when either digital radiography or computed radiography is used. In both the screening and diagnostic settings, the throughput of the mammography system had the most significant impact on decreasing the incremental cost/examination/year of digital mammography. Conclusion: Digital mammography is more expensive than film-screen mammography. Whether digital mammography represents good value for money depends on the eventual life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained from the early cancer diagnosis. Implications: The evidence generated from this study has informed the allocation of public resources for the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer in Australia.
引用
收藏
页码:430 / 436
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Microcalcification -: Is digital luminescence mammography Equal to film-screen systems?
    Aichinger, U
    Krämer, S
    Wilhelmi, U
    Schulz-Wendtland, R
    Bautz, W
    IWDM 2000: 5TH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, 2001, : 9 - 12
  • [12] A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Michell, M. J.
    Iqbal, A.
    Wasan, R. K.
    Evans, D. R.
    Peacock, C.
    Lawinski, C. P.
    Douiri, A.
    Wilson, R.
    Whelehan, P.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2012, 67 (10) : 976 - 981
  • [13] COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING IN CANADA
    Dinh, N-T
    Brand, K.
    Coyle, D.
    Flanagan, W.
    Morrison, H.
    Armstrong, C. Deri
    Onysko, J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 173 : S6 - S6
  • [14] Cost-effectiveness analysis in mammography screening
    vonFournier, D
    RADIOLOGE, 1996, 36 (04): : 300 - 305
  • [15] Cost-effectiveness of mammography screening - Reply
    Rosenquist, CJ
    Lindfors, KK
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 275 (02): : 112 - 112
  • [16] Cost-effectiveness of mammography for older women
    Finucane, TE
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2004, 140 (10) : 844 - 844
  • [17] Digital vs. film-screen mammography: Radiation dose and SNR
    Nickoloff, E
    Dutta, A
    Lu, Z
    Smith, S
    Rosenblatt, R
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (06) : 1307 - 1307
  • [18] EVALUATION OF NEW FILM-SCREEN COMBINATIONS FOR MAMMOGRAPHY
    JENNINGS, RJ
    SIEDBAND, MP
    THOMASON, CL
    ERGUN, DL
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1977, 22 (03): : 591 - 591
  • [19] PAIN AND DISCOMFORT ASSOCIATED WITH FILM-SCREEN MAMMOGRAPHY
    NIELSEN, BB
    MIASKOWSKI, C
    DIBBLE, SL
    BEBER, B
    ALTMAN, N
    MCCOY, CB
    JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1991, 83 (23) : 1754 - 1756
  • [20] Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Mammography in Canada
    Wilkinson, Anna N.
    Mainprize, James G.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    Robinson, Jessica
    Cordeiro, Erin
    Hong, Nicole J. Look
    Williams, Phillip
    Moideen, Nikitha
    Renaud, Julie
    Seely, Jean M.
    Rushton, Moira
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2025, 8 (01)