Cost Effectiveness Analysis of an AI-Assisted Breast Cancer Screening Programme in Singapore: An Early Health Technology Assessment

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into breast cancer screening programs in Singapore. It evaluates AI as a standalone reader and as a companion reader alongside a consultant radiologist and compares these with double reading by two radiologists to determine economic viability and impact on healthcare resource use. <b>Methods</b>: A Markov model compared costs and outcomes of three strategies: double reading, a hybrid AI-assisted model (radiologist plus AI), and AI-only. These were applied to biennial mammography for 10,000 women aged 50-69 years in Singapore, with a 50-year horizon. Epidemiological and cost data were sourced from Asian and local studies and standardized to 2023 values, with a 3% annual discount. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty. <b>Results</b>: Double reading cost USD 19.18 million with 218,460.4 QALYs. The AI-companion model cost USD 18.86 million with 218,476.3 QALYs, saving USD 316,090 and gaining 15.9 QALYs. The AI-only model cost USD 20.53 million with 218,532.4 QALYs, yielding 72.0 QALYs gained and an ICER of USD 18,743 per QALY. Specificity was the most influential parameter. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 50,000 per QALY, AI-only screening had >75% probability of being most cost-effective. <b>Conclusions</b>: AI-assisted screening was cost-saving, while AI-only was cost-effective with greater health gains but higher costs and false positives. A phased, human-in-the-loop approach offers the most economically favourable strategy for AI integration.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-03-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18050836
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of an AI-Assisted Breast Cancer Screening Programme in Singapore: An Early Health Technology Assessment

Yuan Zheng. Lim, Clarence Ong, Serene Si Ning Goh, Yi Wang
Cancers
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of an AI-Assisted Breast Cancer Screening Programme in Singapore: An Early Health Technology Assessment

Yuan Zheng. Lim, Clarence Ong, Serene Si Ning Goh, Yi Wang
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into breast cancer screening programs in Singapore. It evaluates AI as a standalone reader and as a companion reader alongside a consultant radiologist and compares these with double reading by two radiologists to determine economic viability and impact on healthcare resource use. <b>Methods</b>: A Markov model compared costs and outcomes of three strategies: double reading, a hybrid AI-assisted model (radiologist plus AI), and AI-only. These were applied to biennial mammography for 10,000 women aged 50-69 years in Singapore, with a 50-year horizon. Epidemiological and cost data were sourced from Asian and local studies and standardized to 2023 values, with a 3% annual discount. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty. <b>Results</b>: Double reading cost USD 19.18 million with 218,460.4 QALYs. The AI-companion model cost USD 18.86 million with 218,476.3 QALYs, saving USD 316,090 and gaining 15.9 QALYs. The AI-only model cost USD 20.53 million with 218,532.4 QALYs, yielding 72.0 QALYs gained and an ICER of USD 18,743 per QALY. Specificity was the most influential parameter. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 50,000 per QALY, AI-only screening had >75% probability of being most cost-effective. <b>Conclusions</b>: AI-assisted screening was cost-saving, while AI-only was cost-effective with greater health gains but higher costs and false positives. A phased, human-in-the-loop approach offers the most economically favourable strategy for AI integration.

CancersVol. 18(5)
National University of Singapore (SG), National University Health System (SG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 36%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.