Back

Cost-effectiveness of Ultrasound Screening for Uterine Fibroids in the United States

Mhatre, P.; von Rosenvinge, L.; Suresh, A.; Patzkowsky, K.; Frost, A.; Vargas, M. V.; Wu, H.; Wang, K.; Simpson, K.; Segars, J.; Singh, B.

2026-03-11 health economics
10.64898/2026.03.10.26347936 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundUterine fibroids cause significant morbidity, psychosocial stress, and poor quality of life due to symptoms including heavy menstrual bleeding, anemia, pain, and bulk symptoms, as well as reproductive complications including infertility, early pregnancy loss, and preterm birth. Fibroids represent a 42.2 billion USD annual economic burden to the United States healthcare system. Despite reported delays in diagnosis of fibroids even in symptomatic women, clinical guidelines do not recommend screening for fibroids. High risk patient groups are well known. Earlier detection of fibroids through ultrasound screening could allow for earlier intervention with secondary prevention strategies or less invasive treatment options and improve the quality of life of women living with fibroids. ObjectiveThe study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of annual ultrasound screening for fibroids in women aged 25-54 years in the United States. Study DesignIn this economic evaluation, conducted in January-February 2026, a decision-analytic Markov model was developed using a healthcare payer perspective to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound screening for women in the United States. The time horizon was 25 to 55 years of age. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2025 average according to the yearly medical care index of the United States consumer price index. Discounting (3% per cycle) and half-cycle corrections were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore uncertainty, analyzed using TreeAge Pro Healthcare software. Model variables were obtained from published literature. All women residing in the United States aged 25-54 years were assumed to have been invited to the screening program. ResultsUltrasound screening for fibroids for women was found to be not only cost-effective but also cost-saving, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$56,605.631 per QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) gained in the base-case analysis, at a willingness to pay threshold of $30,000 per QALY. Ultrasound screening was cost-effective at all starting ages from 25 to 54 years, with even greater benefit at younger ages. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of these findings across a wide range of variable ranges. Ultrasound screening for fibroids showed a cumulative potential to save $1,169 billion and increase 20.7 million QALYs per year compared to no screening for a population of 63.89 million American women between 25 and 54 years old. The subset of 9.32 million Black American women experienced greater benefits, with potential savings of 183 billion and an increase of 3 million QALYs. ConclusionBased on the model-based analysis, annual ultrasound screening for uterine fibroids for women aged 25-54 years in the United States was cost-effective and cost-saving, even more so for Black women. These model-based findings highlighted the potential value of guidelines for annual ultrasound screening for fibroids, which could enable earlier diagnosis, secondary prevention, and timely intervention, with positive impact on both quality of life and healthcare costs. Tweetable StatementAnnual ultrasound screening for uterine fibroids in U.S. for women aged 25-54 years was cost-effective and cost-saving. Study at a GlanceO_ST_ABSA. Why was this study conducted?C_ST_ABSO_LITo evaluate whether annual ultrasound screening for fibroids in women aged 25-54 years in the U.S. is cost-effective. C_LI B. What are the key findings?O_LIAnnual ultrasound screening beginning at 25 years was both cost-effective and cost-saving, with an ICER of -$56,605.631/QALY for women in the US. C_LIO_LIScreening resulted in potential savings of $1,169 billion for US healthcare payers and 20.7 million QALYs for U.S. women. C_LI C. What does this study add to what is already known?O_LIAnnual ultrasound screening for fibroids is not only cost effective but also cost saving, highlighting its potential to reduce diagnostic delays and enable earlier, less invasive interventions. C_LIO_LIThe results support development and implementation of fibroid screening guidelines. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.1%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.5%
3
Journal of Global Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.0%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.0%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
7
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
9
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.8%
10
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
11
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
12
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
13
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
14
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
16
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
17
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
18
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
19
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
20
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
21
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
22
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
23
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
25
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
26
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
27
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
28
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
29
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
AIDS
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%