School of Pharmacy, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 300 Prince Philip Drive, St. John's, NL A1B 3V6, Canada.
BMC Cancer. 2022 May 6;22(1):501. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09613-1.
Current guidelines for mammography screening for breast cancer vary across agencies, especially for women aged 40-49. Using artificial Intelligence (AI) to read mammography images has been shown to predict breast cancer risk with higher accuracy than alternative approaches including polygenic risk scores (PRS), raising the question whether AI-based screening is more cost-effective than screening based on PRS or existing guidelines. This study provides the first evidence to shed light on this important question.
This study is a model-based economic evaluation. We used a hybrid decision tree/microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of eight strategies of mammography screening for women aged 40-49 (screening beyond age 50 follows existing guidelines). Six of these strategies were defined by combinations of risk prediction approaches (AI, PRS or family history) and screening frequency for low-risk women (no screening or biennial screening). The other two strategies involved annual screening for all women and no screening, respectively. Data used to populate the model were sourced from the published literature.
Risk prediction using AI followed by no screening for low-risk women is the most cost-effective strategy. It dominates (i.e., costs more and generates fewer quality adjusted life years (QALYs)) strategies for risk prediction using PRS followed by no screening or biennial screening for low-risk women, risk prediction using AI or family history followed by biennial screening for low-risk women, and annual screening for all women. It also extendedly dominates (i.e., achieves higher QALYs at a lower incremental cost per QALY) the strategy for risk prediction using family history followed by no screening for low-risk women. Meanwhile, it is cost-effective versus no screening, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,755 per QALY gained.
Risk prediction using AI followed by no breast cancer screening for low-risk women is the most cost-effective strategy. This finding can be explained by AI's ability to identify high-risk women more accurately than PRS and family history (which reduces the possibility of delayed breast cancer diagnosis) and fewer false-positive diagnoses from not screening low-risk women.
目前,乳腺癌乳房 X 光筛查的指南因机构而异,特别是对于 40-49 岁的女性。使用人工智能(AI)读取乳房 X 光图像已被证明可以比其他方法(包括多基因风险评分(PRS))更准确地预测乳腺癌风险,这引发了一个问题,即基于 AI 的筛查是否比基于 PRS 或现有指南的筛查更具成本效益。本研究首次提供了阐明这一重要问题的证据。
这是一项基于模型的经济评估。我们使用混合决策树/微观模拟模型来比较八种 40-49 岁女性乳房 X 光筛查策略的成本效益(50 岁以上的筛查遵循现有指南)。其中六种策略是通过风险预测方法(AI、PRS 或家族史)和低危女性筛查频率(不筛查或每两年筛查一次)的组合来定义的。另外两种策略分别涉及所有女性的年度筛查和不筛查。用于填充模型的数据来自已发表的文献。
使用 AI 进行风险预测,然后对低危女性不进行筛查,是最具成本效益的策略。它优于使用 PRS 进行风险预测,然后对低危女性不进行筛查或每两年筛查一次,使用 AI 或家族史进行风险预测,然后对低危女性每两年筛查一次,以及对所有女性进行年度筛查的策略。它还广泛优于使用家族史进行风险预测,然后对低危女性不进行筛查的策略。同时,它与不筛查相比具有成本效益,增量成本效益比为每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)增加 23755 美元。
使用 AI 进行风险预测,然后对低危女性不进行乳腺癌筛查,是最具成本效益的策略。这一发现可以用 AI 比 PRS 和家族史更准确地识别高危女性(减少乳腺癌诊断延迟的可能性)以及不筛查低危女性导致的假阳性诊断更少来解释。