Artificial intelligence in population breast cancer screening
A two-year cost-effectiveness analysis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 24138348 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joanne Scarfe (0000-0003-3773-4537, Cancer Council NSW, corresponding author), M Luke Marinovich (Cancer Council NSW), Nehmat Houssami (0000-0002-3641-952X, Cancer Council NSW), Alison Pearce (0000-0002-5690-9542, Cancer Council NSW) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 407 |
| Pages | 119704 |
| Publication date | 2026-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Science & Medicine (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0277-9536 • E-ISSN: 1873-5347 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119704 |
| PMID | 42664747 |
| OpenAlex | W7203954283 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 35 |
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into breast cancer screening in Australia. METHODS: Standard screening practice (independent assessment of mammograms by two radiologists, with a third resolving discordance) was compared with three AI-human screen reading strategies: 1)Integrated (one radiologist and AI independently assess mammograms, with a second radiologist for discordance); 2)Triage Single (AI classifies mammograms as 'low-risk' or 'not low-risk' before human review, with standard reading for 'not low-risk' mammograms, single-radiologist reading for 'low-risk' mammograms); and 3)Triage Only (AI used to classify mammograms as 'low-risk' or 'not low-risk', standard reading for 'not low-risk' mammograms, no human reading for 'low-risk' mammograms). A two-year decision-analytic model was developed using a retrospective cohort of 108,970 mammograms from Australian women aged 50-74 (2015-2016). The model incorporated cancer detection and recall outcomes from an Australian health system perspective. Deterministic one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty. Scenario analyses incorporated cancer detection and recall estimates from a prospective randomized controlled trial to explore how base-case results may differ using an alternative screening workflow. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, Triage Only was the most efficient strategy, saving an average of $4 per person screened but detecting 0.521 fewer cancers per 1000 people screened compared to standard practice (ICER $8206 per additional cancer detected). Integrated and Triage Single were dominated. Sensitivity analyses indicated Triage Only is unlikely to be cost-effective (cost-effective in <1% of simulations). Scenario analyses showed AI-supported screening was more effective, though more costly, than standard practice (ICER $1123 per additional cancer detected) and may be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that potential efficiency gains from AI may not necessarily translate into cost-effectiveness in breast cancer screening. Prospective evaluation incorporating real-world AI-assisted screening workflow and longer-term patient outcomes will be critical to determining the value of AI in population breast screening programs.
Breast cancer · Mammography · MEDLINE · Population · AI in cancer detection · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |