Medical Journal of The Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI)
Iran University of Medical Sciences
Thu, Nov 21, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 34, Issue 1 (2-2020)
Med J Islam Repub Iran 2020 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Keshavarz K, Jafari M, Lotfi F, Bastani P, Salesi M, Gheisari F et al . Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) in the diagnosis of breast cancer: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2020; 34 (1) :699-708
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-6133-en.html
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-6133-en.html
Khosro Keshavarz 
, Mojtaba Jafari , Farhad Lotfi , Peivand Bastani , Mahmood Salesi , Farshid Gheisari , Mohsen Rezaei Hemami
, Mojtaba Jafari , Farhad Lotfi , Peivand Bastani , Mahmood Salesi , Farshid Gheisari , Mohsen Rezaei Hemami
University of Exeter, PenTAG Health Technology Assessment, UK , mohsen.rezaeihemami@abdn.ac.uk
Abstract: (1812 Views)
Background: Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) is an imaging technique which is increasing focuses on imaging the chest instead of imaging the whole body. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of PEM technology, as compared with PET, as a diagnostic method used for breast cancer patients.
Methods: The present study was a Health Technology Assessment (HTA), which was conducted via a systematic review of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the methods based on domestic evidence. To evaluate the efficacy of the PEM diagnostic method, as compared with PET, we used efficacy indices, including Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, PPV, and NPV. The required data were collected through a meta-analysis of studies published in electronic databases from 1990 to 2016. In addition, direct costs in both methods were estimated and finally, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the results of the study. Also, a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effects of parameters’ uncertainty in the model. In this study, we used STATA software to integrate the results of studies with similar parameters.
Results: A total of 722 cases (N) were obtained from the five final studies. The results of the meta-analysis performed on the collected data showed that the two methods were identical in terms of the Specificity and PPV parameters. However, as to Sensitivity, NPV, and Accuracy parameters, the PEM method was superior to the PET for diagnosis of primary breast cancer. The total cost of using PEM and PET was $1737385.7 and $1940903.5, respectively, and the cost of a one-time scan (cost per unit) using PEM and PET devices was $86.82 and $157.63, respectively. As compared with the PET method, the use of the PEM diagnostic method for diagnosis of breast cancer was cost-effective in terms of all the five studied parameters (it was definitely cost-effective for four parameters and was also considered as cost-effective for another index, since ICER was below the threshold).
Conclusion: The results showed that the use of PEM technology for the diagnosis of primary breast cancer is more cost-effective than PET technology; thus, due to the wide range of PET technology in different fields, it is recommended that this method should be used in other areas of priority.
Methods: The present study was a Health Technology Assessment (HTA), which was conducted via a systematic review of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the methods based on domestic evidence. To evaluate the efficacy of the PEM diagnostic method, as compared with PET, we used efficacy indices, including Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, PPV, and NPV. The required data were collected through a meta-analysis of studies published in electronic databases from 1990 to 2016. In addition, direct costs in both methods were estimated and finally, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the results of the study. Also, a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effects of parameters’ uncertainty in the model. In this study, we used STATA software to integrate the results of studies with similar parameters.
Results: A total of 722 cases (N) were obtained from the five final studies. The results of the meta-analysis performed on the collected data showed that the two methods were identical in terms of the Specificity and PPV parameters. However, as to Sensitivity, NPV, and Accuracy parameters, the PEM method was superior to the PET for diagnosis of primary breast cancer. The total cost of using PEM and PET was $1737385.7 and $1940903.5, respectively, and the cost of a one-time scan (cost per unit) using PEM and PET devices was $86.82 and $157.63, respectively. As compared with the PET method, the use of the PEM diagnostic method for diagnosis of breast cancer was cost-effective in terms of all the five studied parameters (it was definitely cost-effective for four parameters and was also considered as cost-effective for another index, since ICER was below the threshold).
Conclusion: The results showed that the use of PEM technology for the diagnosis of primary breast cancer is more cost-effective than PET technology; thus, due to the wide range of PET technology in different fields, it is recommended that this method should be used in other areas of priority.
Type of Study: Systematic Review |
Subject:
Radiology
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
