Feasibility and Efficiency Study of a Population-Based Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program in Men and Women in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Based on current evidence, one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men using ultrasound evaluation reduces mortality related to AAA rupture and is considered cost-effective, although all-cause mortality reduction still remains in question. In Spain, there is no population screening program for AAA, so the aim of our study was to perform a pilot population screening program in our area to assess feasibility and efficiency of an AAA screening program for men and women. METHODS: A population AAA screening pilot program was performed in a Barcelona area, including 400,000 inhabitants. According to inclusion criteria, 4,730 individuals aged 65 years at the moment of the trial were invited for screening (2,089 men and 2,641 women). Primary care doctors, trained in duplex ultrasound abdominal evaluations, performed an abdominal aortic measurement. Individuals with a previous diagnosis of AAA, limited life expectancy, or wrong contact data were excluded. Participation data, aortic diameters, AAA prevalence, and related cardiovascular risk factors were analyzed. The results were used in a cost-utility model to assess the efficiency of the screening program. RESULTS: Participation was 50.3% in men and 44% in women. Eleven patients were excluded because of previously diagnosed AAA. Five new asymptomatic AAA were detected in 65-year-old men (0.5% prevalence), all being active smokers. When considering patients excluded for previous AAA diagnosis, the prevalence in 65-year-old men reached 1.4%. Global AAA prevalence in smoking men reached 2.67%. No AAA was detected in women. Subaneurysmal aorta prevalence in men was 2.9% (n = 29), and in women, it was 0.08% (n = 2). A cost-utility analysis model on screening versus no screening retrieved 13,664€ per quality-adjusted life years at a 10-year horizon and 39,455€ per quality-adjusted life years at a 30-year horizon. CONCLUSIONS: AAA population-based screening by ultrasound evaluation in primary care is logistically feasible in our area. Despite that, AAA prevalence is lower than expected in men, and null in women. Cost-utility model results indicate that a local AAA screening program is only efficient in a 30 years' time horizon. Such inefficient results for a population screening make it necessary to consider other strategies such as opportunistic or subgroup screening in our area.

Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the costs and health-related outcomes of double versus single reading of digital mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme. METHODS: Based on data from 57,157 digital screening mammograms from women aged 50-69 years, we compared costs, false-positive results, positive predictive value and cancer detection rate using four reading strategies: double reading with and without consensus and arbitration, and single reading with first reader only and second reader only. Four highly trained radiologists read the mammograms. RESULTS: Double reading with consensus and arbitration was 15 % (Euro 334,341) more expensive than single reading with first reader only. False-positive results were more frequent at double reading with consensus and arbitration than at single reading with first reader only (4.5 % and 4.2 %, respectively; p < 0.001). The positive predictive value (9.3 % and 9.1 %; p = 0.812) and cancer detection rate were similar for both reading strategies (4.6 and 4.2 per 1000 screens; p = 0.283). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that changing to single reading of mammograms could produce savings in breast cancer screening. Single reading could reduce the frequency of false-positive results without changing the cancer detection rate. These results are not conclusive and cannot be generalized to other contexts with less trained radiologists. KEY POINTS: • Double reading of digital mammograms is more expensive than single reading. • Compared to single reading, double reading yields a higher proportion of false-positive results. • The cancer detection rate was similar for double and single readings. • Single reading may be a cost-effective strategy in breast cancer screening programmes.