The Cost-effectiveness of Mammographic Screening Strategies

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 274, Issue 11, 1995, Pages 881-884

  Lindfors, Karen K ^a   Rosenquist, C John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of Illinois School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HIGH RISK POPULATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0029051885     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.1995.03530110043033     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Mettlin C, Smart CR. Breast cancer detection guidelines for women aged 40-49 years: rationale for the American Cancer Society reaffirmation of recommendations. CA Cancer J Clin. 1994;44:248-255.
2. Volkers N. NCI replaces guidelines with statement of evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:14-15.
3. Moskowitz M. Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology. 1986; 161:37-41.
4. Tabar L, Faberberg G, Day NE, Holmberg L. What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? an analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial. Br J Cancer. 1987; 55:547-551.
5. Feig SA. Determination of mammographic screening intervals with surrogate measures for women ages 40-49 years. Radiology. 1994;193:311-314.
6. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. Needle core biopsy guided with mammography: a study of cost-effectiveness. Radiology. 1994;190:217-222.
7. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology. 1994;193:359-364.
8. Bassett LW, Liu TH, Guiliano AE, Gold RH. The prevalence of carcinoma in palpable vs impalpable mammographically detected lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157:21-24.
9. Baker LH. Breast cancer detection demonstration project. CA Cancer J Clin. 1982;32:194-225.
10. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179:463-468.
11. Ellis H, Cox PJ. Breast problems in 1000 consecutive referrals to surgical out-patients. Postgrad Med J. 1984;60:653-656.
12. Donegan WL. Evaluation of a palpable breast mass. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:937-942.
13. US Dept of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, and Bureau of the Census Vital Statistics. Statistical Abstract of the US, 111th ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1991:84.
14. Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun. Radiology. 1990;176:741-747.
15. Schmidt R, Morrow M, Bibbo M, Cox S. Benefits of stereotactic aspiration cytology. Admin Radiol. 1990;9:35-42.
16. Eddy DM, Hasselmad V, McGivney W, Hendu W. The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years. JAMA. 1988;259:1512-1519.
17. Ries LAG, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Hartman AM, Edwards BK, eds. Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1988. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1991:Table II-43. National Institutes of Health publication 91-2789.
18. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:187-210.
19. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Ten to fourteen year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982;69:349-355.
20. Sickles EA, Kopans DB. Deficiencies in the analysis of breast cancer screening data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1621-1624.
21. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the international workshop on screening for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1644-1656.
22. Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, et al. Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet. 1990;335:241-246.
23. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE. The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1989;43:107-114.
24. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer. BMJ. 1988;297:943-948.
25. Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgard C, Janzon L, Linell F. Interval carcinomas in the Malmo mammographic screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159:287-294.
26. Colditz GA, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, et al. Family history, age, and risk of breast cancer: prospective data from the Nurses' Health Study. JAMA. 1993;270:338-343.
27. Slattery ML, Kerber RA. A comprehensive evaluation of family history and breast cancer risk. JAMA. 1993;270:1563-1568.
28. Mushlin AI, Fintor MA. Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Cancer. 1992;69:1957-1962.
29. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal. 1995;15:369-389.
30. Kattlove H, Liberati A, Keeler E, Brook RH. Benefits and costs of screening and treatment for early breast cancer. JAMA. 1995;273:142-148.
31. Cardenosa G, Eklund GW. Screening mammography in women 40-49 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:1104-1106.
32. Curpen BN, Sickles EA, Sollitto RA, Ominsky SH, Galvin HB, Frankel SD. The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years old versus women 50-64 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:1099-1103.
33. Smart CR. Highlights of the evidence of benefit for women aged 40-49 years from the 14-year follow up of the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. Cancer. 1994;74:296-300.
34. Rosenquist CJ, Lindfors KK. Screening mammography in women aged 40-49 years: analysis of cost-effectiveness. Radiology. 1994;191:647-650.