Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPosso, Margarita
dc.contributor.authorCarles Lavila, Misericordia
dc.contributor.authorRué i Monné, Montserrat
dc.contributor.authorPuig, Teresa
dc.contributor.authorBonfill, Xavier
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-02T08:51:26Z
dc.date.available2016-09-02T08:51:26Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/57765
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The usual practice in breast cancer screening programmes for mammogram interpretation is to perform double reading. However, little is known about its cost-effectiveness in the context of digital mammography. Our purpose was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of digital mammograms in a population-based breast cancer screening programme. Methods: Data from 28,636 screened women was used to establish a decision-tree model and to compare three strategies: 1) double reading; 2) double reading for women in their first participation and single reading for women in their subsequent participations; and 3) single reading. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was defined as the expected cost per one additionally detected cancer. We performed a deterministic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the ICER. Results: The detection rate of double reading (5.17‰) was similar to that of single reading (4.78‰; P = .768). The mean cost of each detected cancer was €8,912 for double reading and €8,287 for single reading. The ICER of double reading versus single reading was €16,684. The sensitivity analysis showed variations in the ICER according to the sensitivity of reading strategies. The strategy that combines double reading in first participation with single reading in subsequent participations was ruled out due to extended dominance. Conclusions: From our results, double reading appears not to be a cost-effective strategy in the context of digital mammography. Double reading would eventually be challenged in screening programmes, as single reading might entail important net savings without significantly changing the cancer detection rate. These results are not conclusive and should be confirmed in prospective studies that investigate long-term outcomes like quality adjusted life years (QALYs).ca_ES
dc.language.isoengca_ES
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceca_ES
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159806ca_ES
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, núm. 7, e0159806ca_ES
dc.rightscc-by, (c) Posso et al., 2016ca_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.subject.otherMama -- Càncerca_ES
dc.subject.otherMama -- Radiografiaca_ES
dc.titleCost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programmeca_ES
dc.typearticleca_ES
dc.identifier.idgrec024583
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionca_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessca_ES
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159806


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

cc-by, (c) Posso et al., 2016
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as cc-by, (c) Posso et al., 2016