人工智能用于乳腺癌筛查的长期结果和成本效益:一项建模研究。

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Matthew Andersen, Ilana B Richman, Natalia Kunst
{"title":"人工智能用于乳腺癌筛查的长期结果和成本效益:一项建模研究。","authors":"Matthew Andersen, Ilana B Richman, Natalia Kunst","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted breast cancer screening may improve diagnostic accuracy, but the long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of AI assisted screening is unknown. We estimated benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of incorporating an AI product, Saige-DX, into standard screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a microsimulation model using nationally representative data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results), the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and published data on AI performance. The model compared biennial screening for women ages 40-74 using DBT to DBT plus AI. We estimated false positive and false negative screens, breast cancer cases by stage, and breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened over a lifetime. We also estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a cohort of 1000 women screened from ages 40-74, AI-assisted screening reduced false negative screens by 2.1 and false positives by 50 resulting in 0.33 fewer advanced breast cancer cases (regional or metastatic cancer) at diagnosis and 0.13 fewer breast cancer deaths compared to DBT alone. Screening with AI resulted in 3.09 additional QALYs and an increase in lifetime costs of $936,430 per 1000 women, yielding an ICER of $303,279 per QALY. In 98% of simulations, AI was not cost-effective at a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Findings were not sensitive to changes in test characteristics likely to be observed in routine practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI-assisted breast cancer screening yielded modest reductions in breast cancer mortality, but at current pricing, AI is not cost-effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Andersen, Ilana B Richman, Natalia Kunst\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted breast cancer screening may improve diagnostic accuracy, but the long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of AI assisted screening is unknown. We estimated benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of incorporating an AI product, Saige-DX, into standard screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a microsimulation model using nationally representative data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results), the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and published data on AI performance. The model compared biennial screening for women ages 40-74 using DBT to DBT plus AI. We estimated false positive and false negative screens, breast cancer cases by stage, and breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened over a lifetime. We also estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a cohort of 1000 women screened from ages 40-74, AI-assisted screening reduced false negative screens by 2.1 and false positives by 50 resulting in 0.33 fewer advanced breast cancer cases (regional or metastatic cancer) at diagnosis and 0.13 fewer breast cancer deaths compared to DBT alone. Screening with AI resulted in 3.09 additional QALYs and an increase in lifetime costs of $936,430 per 1000 women, yielding an ICER of $303,279 per QALY. In 98% of simulations, AI was not cost-effective at a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Findings were not sensitive to changes in test characteristics likely to be observed in routine practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI-assisted breast cancer screening yielded modest reductions in breast cancer mortality, but at current pricing, AI is not cost-effective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.005\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.005","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:人工智能(AI)辅助乳腺癌筛查可能提高诊断准确性,但人工智能辅助筛查的长期健康结果和成本效益尚不清楚。我们评估了将人工智能产品Saige-DX纳入数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)标准筛查的收益、危害和成本效益。方法:我们利用SEER(监测、流行病学和最终结果)、乳腺癌监测联盟的全国代表性数据开发了一个微观模拟模型,并公布了人工智能性能的数据。该模型比较了40-74岁女性使用DBT和DBT加AI的两年一次筛查。我们估计了假阳性和假阴性筛查、分期乳腺癌病例以及每1000名接受筛查的女性一生中乳腺癌死亡人数。我们还估计了质量调整寿命年(QALYs)、成本和增量成本效益比(ICER)。结果:在对1000名40-74岁女性进行筛查的队列中,人工智能辅助筛查将假阴性筛查减少了2.1例,假阳性筛查减少了50例,与单独DBT相比,诊断时晚期乳腺癌病例(区域性或转移性癌症)减少了0.33例,乳腺癌死亡率减少了0.13例。人工智能筛查导致3.09个额外的QALY,每1000名妇女的终身成本增加936,430美元,每个QALY的ICER为303,279美元。在98%的模拟中,人工智能在10万美元/QALY的支付意愿阈值下并不具有成本效益。结果对常规实践中可能观察到的测试特征变化不敏感。结论:人工智能辅助乳腺癌筛查可适度降低乳腺癌死亡率,但以目前的价格,人工智能并不具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Long-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted breast cancer screening may improve diagnostic accuracy, but the long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of AI assisted screening is unknown. We estimated benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of incorporating an AI product, Saige-DX, into standard screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

Methods: We developed a microsimulation model using nationally representative data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results), the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and published data on AI performance. The model compared biennial screening for women ages 40-74 using DBT to DBT plus AI. We estimated false positive and false negative screens, breast cancer cases by stage, and breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened over a lifetime. We also estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results: In a cohort of 1000 women screened from ages 40-74, AI-assisted screening reduced false negative screens by 2.1 and false positives by 50 resulting in 0.33 fewer advanced breast cancer cases (regional or metastatic cancer) at diagnosis and 0.13 fewer breast cancer deaths compared to DBT alone. Screening with AI resulted in 3.09 additional QALYs and an increase in lifetime costs of $936,430 per 1000 women, yielding an ICER of $303,279 per QALY. In 98% of simulations, AI was not cost-effective at a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Findings were not sensitive to changes in test characteristics likely to be observed in routine practice.

Conclusions: AI-assisted breast cancer screening yielded modest reductions in breast cancer mortality, but at current pricing, AI is not cost-effective.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信