Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study.
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.
Health Service Research and Policy Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Carla.Guerriero@lshtm.ac.uk
Carla
C
Guerriero
Maureen G C
MG
Gillan
John
J
Cairns
Matthew G
MG
Wallis
Fiona J
FJ
Gilbert
D000368:Aged; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer / Q000191:economics*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007318:Inservice Training / Q000191:economics; D008327:Mammography / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D008875:Middle Aged; D009313:National Health Programs; D011857:Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D006113:United Kingdom
Eur J Cancer. 2008 Apr;44(6):798-807
18353630
Clin Radiol. 2004 May;59(5):390-9
15081844
Value Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;13(2):215-21
19878494
J Med Screen. 1998;5(3):141-5
9795875
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jul;187(1):38-41
16794152
Eur J Cancer. 1998 Dec;34(13):2010-4
10070302
J Med Screen. 1994 Jan;1(1):7-12
8790480
Radiology. 2004 Apr;231(1):7-9
15054153
Radiology. 2009 Nov;253(2):353-8
19703851
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jan;192(1):216-20
19098202
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Feb;9(6):iii, 1-58
15717938
Radiology. 2009 Oct;253(1):17-22
19789251
Br J Radiol. 2005;78 Spec No 1:S26-30
15917442
N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 16;359(16):1675-84
18832239
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009 Apr;53(2):171-6
19527363
J Med Screen. 1998;5(4):195-201
9934650
Eur Radiol. 2006 Jul;16(7):1449-60
16416275
Br J Cancer. 2006 Oct 9;95(7):801-10
17016484
Radiology. 2006 Jun;239(3):710-7
16569787
Radiology. 2009 Oct;253(1):9-16
19789250
Radiology. 2004 Apr;231(1):208-14
14990808