Background/Objectives: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
Goh et al. (Wed,) studied this question.