Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A study on the cost effectiveness of sestamibi scintimammography for screening women with dense breasts for breast cancer

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The potential impact of Sestamibi scintimammography (SSMM) on the cost effective management of women with dense breasts is not known. This study addresses this issue quantitatively by examining the impact of SSMM based screening strategies on the ∼3,000,000 women over 40 with very dense breasts (DY patterns) without palpable masses and who have had one or more prior mammograms, who undergo routine screening each year. Quantitative decision tree sensitivity analysis was used to compare the conventional mammography (MM) strategy (strategy A), which does not subject patients with negative mammograms to any further examination until their next screening, with two decision strategies for screening with SSMM SSMM after a negative mammogram (strategy B) or SSMM as the only screening test for women already identified as having dense breasts by a previous mammogram (strategy C). Cost effectiveness was measured by calculating the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of strategies B and C, which is the cost of achieving an additional year of life in the screening population by choosing a SSMM based decision strategy rather than the conventional strategy. Strategies B and C reduced the number of false negative diagnoses by 62% and 8%, respectively. The ICER was $632,000 and $3.18M per life year for strategy B and C, respectively. To be cost effective, the pre‐test probability of cancer in the study population must be greater than 3% for strategy B or the cost of SSMM must be less than $50 for strategy C. These results show the ICER of an SSMM based breast cancer screening strategy in the management of patients with dense breasts is not currently within the range (∼$50,000 per year life saved) of other commonly performed medical interventions that are considered cost effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA: Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin 48(1): 6-29, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  2. Khalkhali I, Mena I, Diggles L: Review of imaging techniques for the diagnosis of breast cancer: a new role of prone scintimammography using technetium-99m sestamibi. Eur J Nucl Med 21(4): 357-362, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mandelblatt JS, Wheat ME, Monane M, Moshief RD, Hollenberg JP, Tang J: Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions. A decision analysis model. Ann Intern Med 116(9): 722-730, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eddy D, Hasselbad V, McGivney W, Hendee W: The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years. Jama 259: 1512-1519, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown ML, Fintor L: Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening: preliminary results of a systematic review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 25(2): 113-118, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenquist CJ, Lindfors KK: Screening mammography in women aged 40–49 years: analysis of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 191(3): 647-650, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kattlove H, Liberati A, Keeler E, Brook RH: Benefits and costs of screening and treatment for early breast cancer. Development of a basic benefit package (see comments). JAMA 273: 142-148, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wolfe JN: Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. Am F Roentgenol 126: 1130-1139, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wolfe JN, Safilas AF, Salane M: Mammographic parenchymal patterns and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: A case-control study. AJR 148: 1087-1092, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  10. van Gils CH, Otten JDM, Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL: Short communication: Breast parenchymal patterns and their changes with age. Br J Radiol 68: 1133-1135, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  11. Whitehouse GH, Leinster SJ: The variation of breast parenchymal patterns with age. Br J Radiol 58(688): 315-318, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wolfe JN: Breast parenchymal patterns and their changes with age. Radiology Dec. 121(3Pt.1): 545-552, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sicles EA, Ernster MD: Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276(1): 33-38, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  14. Government US: Statistical abstract of the United States 1995. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  15. Horton JA, Cruess DF, Romans MC: Compliance with mammography screening guidelines: 1995 Mammography attitudes and usage study report. Womens Health Issues 6(5): 239-245, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  16. Osuch JR, Bonham VL: The timely diagnosis of breast cancer. Cancer Suppl 74(1): 271-278, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  17. Edeiken S: Mammography and palpable cancer of the breast. Cancer 61(2): 263-265, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mann B, Guiliano A, Bassett L, Barber M, Hallauer W, Morton D: Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer as a result of normal mammograms. Arch Surg 118: 23-24, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  19. Walker Q, Langlands A: The misuse of mammography in the management of breast cancer. Med J Australia 145(5): 185-187, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  20. Egeli R, Urban J: Mammography in symptomatic women 50 years of age and under and those over 50. Cancer 43(3): 878-882, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V: Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. JAMA 276(1): 39-43, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC: Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184(3): 613-617, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yaffe M, Jennings R, Fahrig R, Fewell T: X-Ray Spectral Considerations for Mammography. RSNA Categorical Course in Physics 1994, 63-73, 1994

  24. Wu X, Barnes G, Tucker D: Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology 179: 143-148, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  25. Aktolun C: Technetium-99m-sestamibi imagining in breast cancer: An alternative to thallium-201 imaging (letter). J Nucl Med 35(12): 2055-2056, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  26. Baum JK, Khalkhali I, Villanueve-Meyer J, Schnitt S, Houlihan MJ, Haber SB: Diagnostic accuracy of Tc-99m sestamibi breast imaging in the mammographically dense breast (Abstract). Suppl Radiol 201: 177, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  27. Palmedo H, Schonburg A, Grunwald F, Mallmann P, Krebs D, HJ B: Technetium-99m-MIBI scintimammography for suspicious breast lesions. J Nucl Med 37: 626-630, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  28. Taillefer R, Robidoux A, Lambert R, Turpin S, Laperrièe J: Technetium-99m-sestamibi prone scintimammography to detect primary breast cancer and axillary lymph node involvement. J Nucl Med 36(10): 1758-1765, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  29. Villanueva-Meyer J, Leonard MHJ, Briscoe E, et al.: Mammoscintigraphy with technetium-99m-sestamibi in suspected breast cancer. J Nucl Med 37(6): 926-930, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  30. Khalkhali I, Mena I, Jouanne E, et al.: Prone scintimammography in patients with suspicion of carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg 178(5): 491-497, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  31. Society AC: Cancer Facts and Figures. Atlanta, GA, 1996

  32. Brown ML: Sensitivity analysis in the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Cancer (Suppl) 69(7): 1963-1967, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  33. HealthCare Consultants of America I: 1998 Physicians Fee & Coding Guide: A Comprehensive Fee and Coding Reference. HealthCare Consultants of America, Inc., Augusta, GA, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  34. Inc. SAsP: Anthony's DRG Guidebook 1998. Eugene W Lorenz, Reston, VA, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  35. Administration HCF: Rules and Regulations. Federal Register 62(211): 59051-59257, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  36. Layfield LJ, Chrischilles EA, Cohen MB, Bottles K: The palpable breast nodule. A costeffectiveness analysis of alternate diagnostic approaches (see comments). Cancer 72(5): 1642-1651, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kirschner C, Davis S, Duffy C, et al.: Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology CPT 98. American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  38. Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, New York, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  39. Drummond MD: Purchasing and Providing Cost Effective Health Care. Churchill Livingstone, 1993

  40. Drummond MJ, Torrance GW: Some guidelines on the use of cost effectiveness league tables. Br Med J 302: 570-572, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sox HC: Decision-making: A comparison of referral practice and primary care. J. Family Pract. 42(2): 155-160, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  42. Weinstein M, Fineberg HE: Clinical Decision Analysis. Fineberg H and AS, Saunders, Philadelphia, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  43. Habbema JD, Bossuyt PM, Dippel DW, Marshall S, Hilden J: Analysing clinical decision analyses. Statistics in medicine 9(11): 1229-1242, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  44. Luce BR, Simpson K: Methods of cost-effectiveness analysis: Areas of consensus and debate. Clinical Therapeutics 17(1): 109-125, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gold M: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine Oxford University Press, New York, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  46. Beck JR, Pauker SG: The Markov process in medical prognosis. Medical Decision Making 3(4): 419-458, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kemeny JB, Snell JL: Finite Markov Chains. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR: markov models in medical decision making: A practical guide. Medical Decision Making 13(4): 322-338, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  49. Gambhir S, Gupta P, Allen M, et al.: A simulation tool for modeling cost effectiveness with applications for determining the cost effectiveness role of nuclear medicine studies in lung and breast cancer. J Nucl Med 37(5): 301, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gambhir SS, Gupta P, Shepherd J, et al.: MD@: A physician-friendly decision analysis tool. MD Computing 15(1): 40-48, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  51. Vega A, Garijo F, Ortega E: Core needle aspiration biopsy of palpable breast masses. Acta Oncol 34(1): 31-34, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  52. Dowlatshahi K, Jokich PM, Kluskens LF, Patel R, Economou SG: A prospective study of double diagnosis of nonpalpable lesions of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 172(2): 121-124, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  53. Dowlatshahi K, Yaremko ML, Kluskens LF, Jokich PM: Nonpalpable breast lesions: Findings of stereotaxic needle-core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology (see comments). Radiology 181(3): 745-750, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  54. Khanna AK, Singh MR, Khanna S, Khanna NN: Fine needle aspiration cytology, imprint cytology and tru-cut needle biopsy in breast lumps: A comparative evaluation. J Indian Med Assoc 89(7): 192-195, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sadler GP, McGee S, Dallimore NS, et al.: Role of fine-needle aspiration cytology and needle-core biopsy in the diagnosis of lobular carcinoma of the breast. Br J Surg 81(9): 1315-1317, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  56. Jackson VP, Reynolds HE: Stereotaxic needle-core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytologic evaluation of nonpalpable breast lesions (editorial: comment) (see comments). Radiology 181(3): 633-634, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schmidt RA: Stereotactic breast biopsy: Ca Cancer J Clin 44(3): 172-191, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  58. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al.: Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: A multiinstitutional study (see comments). Radiology 193(2): 359-364, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rotten D, Levaillant JM, Leridon H, Letessier A, Sandres M: Ultrasonographically guided fine needle aspiration cytology and core-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of breast tumors. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 49(3): 175-186, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  60. Barth R Jr, Merino MJ, Solomon D, Yang JC, Baker AR: A prospective study of the value of core needle biopsy and fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of soft tissue masses. Surgery 112(3): 536-543, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kaufman Z, Shpitz B, Shapiro M, Rona R, Lew S, Dinbar A: Triple approach in the diagnosis of dominant breast masses: Combined physical examination, mammography, and fine-needle aspiration. J Surg Oncol 56(4): 254-257, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  62. Fajardo LL, Davis JR, Wiens JL, Trego DC: Mammograph-guided stereotactic fine-needle aspiration cytology of non-palpable breast lesions: Prospective comparison with surgical biopsy results. Am J Roentgenol 155(5): 977-981, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  63. Arishita GI, Cruz BK, Harding CT, Arbutina DR: Mammogram-directed fine-needle aspiration of nonpalpable breast lesions. J Surg Oncol 48(3): 153-157, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  64. McDonald AH, Hanchard B, Shah D, Fletcher PR, DuQuesnay R: Fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of breast cancer. West Indian Med J 39(2): 71-73, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gent HJ, Denkert B, Lagemann A: Stereotaxic fine needle aspiration of nonpalpable breast lesions with the cytoguide unit: First experiences. Recent Results Cancer Res 119: 109-113, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  66. Peterson IM, Brink WJ: Fine-needle aspiration biopsy. When is it most beneficial? Postgrad Med 88(3): 119-122, 124, 126, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  67. Masood S, Frykberg ER, McLellan GL, Scalapino MC, Mitchum DG, Bullard JB: Prospective evaluation of radiologically directed fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. Cancer 66(7): 1480-1487, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  68. Linsk JA: Breast cancer: Early diagnosis of precursor lesions and clinically inapparent carcinoma by fine needle aspiration. Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother 8(3): 169-174, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  69. Giard RW, Hermans J: Interpretation of diagnostic cytology with likelihood ratios. Arch Pathol Lab Med 114(8): 852-854, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wilkinson EJ, Bland KJ: Techniques and results of aspiration cytology for diagnosis of benign and malignant diseases of the breast. Surg Clin North Am 70(4): 801-813, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  71. Thomas PA, Vazquez MF, Waisman J: Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and frozen section of palpable mammary lesions. Mod Pathol 3(5): 570-574, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  72. Helvie MA, Baker DE, Adler DD, Andersson I, Naylor B, Buckwalter KA: Radiographically guided fine-needle aspiration of nonpalpable breast lesions. Radiology 174(3 Pt 1): 657-661, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  73. Pressler V, Namiki T, Cieply J, et al.: Stereotactic fine needle aspiration of mammographic lesions. J Am Coll Surg 178(1): 54-58, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sheikh FA, Tinkoff GH, Kline TS, Neal HS: Final diagnosis by fine-needle aspiration biopsy for definitive operation in breast cancer. Am J Surg 154(5): 470-474, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  75. Saunders G, Lakra Y, Libcke J: Comparison of needle aspiration cytologic diagnosis with excisional biopsy tissue diagnosis of palpable tumors of the breast in a community hospital. Surg Gynecol Obstet 172(6): 437-440, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  76. Services UDoHaH: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1991. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1993

  77. Baker L: Breast cancer detection demonstration project: Five-year summary report. Cancer J Clin 32(4): 194-227, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  78. Baines CJ, Miller AB, Wall C, et al.: Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian national breast screening study: A preliminary report from five centers. Radiology 160(2): 295-298, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  79. Butler JA, Vargas HI, Worthen N, Wilson SE: Accuracy of combined clinicalmammographic-cytologic diagnosis of dominant breast masses. A prospective study discussion 896. Arch Surg 125(7): 893-895; 1990

    Google Scholar 

  80. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL: Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: Methodology and results of 27,114 examinations (see comments). Radiology 175(2): 323-327, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  81. Khalkhali I, Mena I: The role of technetium-99m-labeled sestamibi scintimammography in diagnosis of breast cancer. New Perspectives in Cancer Diagnosis and Management 2(3): 92-94, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  82. Gisvold JJ, Goellner JR, Grant CS, et al.: Breast biopsy: A comparative study of stereotaxically guided core and excisional techniques. Am J Roentgenol 162(4): 815-820, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  83. Israel PZ, Fine RE: Stereotactic needle biopsy for occult breast lesions: A minimally invasive alternative. Am Surg 61(1): 87-91, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  84. McCombs B, Jahan Fu: Imaging-guided core biopsy of the breast. Breast J 1(1): 9-16, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  85. Minkowitz S, Moskowitz R, Khafif RA, Alderete MN: TRU-CUT needle biopsy of the breast. An analysis of its specificity and sensitivity. Cancer 57(2): 320-323, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  86. Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, et al.: US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 187(2):507-511, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  87. Smyth AT, Cederbom GJ: Core biopsy of breast lesions. J La State Med Soc 146(11): 499-501, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  88. Feig SA, Ehrlich SM: Estimation of radiation risk from screening mammography: Recent trends and comparison with expected benefits. Radiology 174(3 Pt 1): 638-647, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  89. Hurley SF, Kaldor JM: The benefits and risks of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev 14: 101-130, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  90. Schmidt JG: The epidemiology of mass breast cancer screening — a plea for a valid measure of benefit (see comments). J Clin Epidemiol 43(3): 215-225, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  91. DeCamp MM Jr, Jaklitsch MT, Mentzer SJ, Harpole DH Jr, Sugarbaker DJ: The safety and versatility of videothoracoscopy: A prospective analysis of 895 consecutive cases (see comments). J Am College Surg 181(2): 113-120, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  92. Beck J, Kassirer J, Pauker S: A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the “DEALE”). I. Validation of the method. Am J Med 73: 883-888, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  93. Beck J, Pauker S, Gottlieb J: A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the “DEALE”). II. Use in medical decision-making. Am J Med 73: 889-897, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  94. Garber AM, Phelps CE: Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 16(1): 1-31, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  95. Statistics USBoL: Commodity and service groups and detailed expenditures, indexes. CPI Detailed Report 1998 (1998): 93, 1998

  96. Mishkin FS: The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets 1-71-72. HarperCollins College Publishers, New York, NY, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  97. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR: Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (see comments). Jama 276(16): 1339-1341, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  98. Smith TJ, Hillner BE: The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 11: 771-776, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  99. Weinstein M, Stason W: Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation 66(3): 56-66, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  100. Hillner B, Smith T, Desch C: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of autologous bone marrow transplantation in metastatic breast cancer. Estimates using decision analysis while awaiting clinical trial results. JAMA 267(15): 2055-2061, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  101. Garner T, Dardis R: Cost-effectiveness analysis of end-stage renal disease treatments. Medical Care 25(1): 25-34, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  102. Edelson J, Weinstein M, Tosteson A, Williams L, Lee T, Goldman L: Long-term cost-effectiveness of various initial monotherapies for mild to moderate hypertension. JAMA 263(3): 407-413, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  103. Desch CE, Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Retchin SM: Should the elderly receive chemotherapy for node-negative breast cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis examining total and active life-expectancy outcomes. J Clin Oncol 11(4): 777-782, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  104. Piccolo S, Lastoria S, Mainolfi C, Muto P, Bazzicalupo L, Salvatore M: Technetium-99m-methylene diphosphonate scintimammography to image primary breast cancer. J Nucl Med 36(5): 718-724, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  105. Cancer AJCo: Manual for staging of cancer 1–280. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1992

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

    M.W. Allen

  2. The Crump Institute for Biological Imaging Los Angeles, California

    P Hendi, M.E. Phelps & S.S. Gambhir

  3. Department of Radiology, UCLA School of Medicine, Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, Los Angeles, California

    L. Bassett

Authors
  1. M.W. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P Hendi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Bassett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M.E. Phelps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S.S. Gambhir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, M., Hendi, P., Bassett, L. et al. A study on the cost effectiveness of sestamibi scintimammography for screening women with dense breasts for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 55, 243–258 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006211817207

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006211817207

Search

Navigation