Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMoger, Tron Anders
dc.contributor.authorSwanson, Jayson O.
dc.contributor.authorHolen, åsne Sørlien
dc.contributor.authorHanestad, Berit
dc.contributor.authorHofvind, Solveig
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-07T09:11:49Z
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-27T14:14:30Z
dc.date.available2020-02-07T09:11:49Z
dc.date.available2020-02-27T14:14:30Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-31
dc.identifier.citationMoger TA, Swanson J, Holen åS, Hanestad B, Hofvind S. Cost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norway. European Journal of Health Economics. 2019;20:1261-1269en
dc.identifier.issn1618-7598
dc.identifier.issn1618-7598
dc.identifier.issn1618-7601
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/8189
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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 higher for DBT compared with DM after including recall costs. Further studies with long-term treatment data are needed to understand the complete costs of implementing DBT in screening.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe project is funded by the Research Council of Norway, Grant No. 247941/H10.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSpringer Verlagen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Journal of Health Economics;Volume 20, pages 1261–1269 (2019)
dc.rightsThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectScreenings en
dc.subjectCostsen
dc.subjectBreast canceren
dc.subjectMammographyen
dc.subjectTomosynthesesen
dc.titleCost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norwayen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.date.updated2020-02-07T09:11:49Z
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01094-7
dc.identifier.cristin1740218
dc.source.journalEuropean Journal of Health Economics


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.