Surveillance Mammography and Stereotactic Core Breast Biopsy for Probably Benign Lesions: A Cost Comparison Analysis

Academic Radiology

Volumn 4, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 419-425

  Brenner, R James ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^b  

^a JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Breast radiography; Economics, medical; Radiology and radiologists, socioeconomic issues

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST DISEASE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; STEREOTAXIC SURGERY;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST; BREAST DISEASES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; STEREOTAXIC TECHNIQUES;

EID: 0031154510     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(97)80048-7     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: stereotactic automated large-core biopsies. Radiology 1991;180:403-407.
2. Dowlatshahi K, Yaremko ML, Kluskens LF, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: findings of stereotaxic needle core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology. Radiology 1991;181:745-750.
3. Dronkers DJ. Stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions. Radiology 1992;183:631-634.
4. Elvecrog EL, Lechner MC, Nelson MT. Nonpalpable breast lesions: correlation of stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy and surgical biopsy results. Radiology 1993;188:453-455.
5. Sullivan DC. Needle core biopsy of mammographic lesions. AJR 1994; 162:601-608.
6. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology 1994;193:359-364.
7. Caines JS, McPhee MD, Konok GP, et al. Stereotaxic needle core biopsy of breast lesions using a regular mammographic table with an adaptable stereotaxic device. AJR 1994;163:317-321.
8. Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Shepard MJ, et al. Stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology 1994; 193:91-95.
9. Doyle AJ, Murray KA, Nelson EW, et al. Selective use of image-guided large-core needle biopsy of the breast: accuracy and cost-effectiveness. AJR 1995;165:281-284.
10. Brenner RJ, Fajardo L, Fisher PR, et al. Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: effect of operator experience and number of samples on diagnostic accuracy. AJR 1996;166:341-346.
11. Caines JS, Chantziantoniou K, Wright BA, et al. Nova Scotia breast screening program experience: use of needle core biopsy in the diagnosis of screening-detected abnormalities. Radiology 1996;198:125-130.
12. Brenner RJ. Interventional procedures of the breast: medicolegal considerations. Radiology 1995;195:611-615.
13. Liberman L, Fahs MC, Dershaw DD, et al. Impact of stereotaxic core breast biopsy on cost of diagnosis. Radiology 1995;195:633-637.
14. Sickles EA. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33:1123-1130.
15. Janes RH, Bouton MS. Initial 300 consecutive stereotactic core-needle breast biopsies by a surgical group. Am J Surg 1994;168:533-537.
16. Mikhail RA, Nathan RC, Weiss M, et al. Stereotactic core needle biopsy of mammographic breast lesions as a viable alternative to surgical biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 1994;1:363-367.
17. Israel PZ, Fine RE. Stereotactic needle biopsy for occult breast lesions: a minimally invasive alternative. Am Surg 1995;61:87-91.
18. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 1989;171:645-646.
19. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463-468.
20. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184:409-414.
21. Homer MJ. Pre-biopsy needle localization: methods, problems and expected results. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:139-153.
22. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. Needle core biopsy guided with mammography: a study of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1994;190:217-222.
23. Sickles EA, Parker SH. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy in the management of probably benign lesions. Radiology 1993;188:315.
24. Hillner BE, Bear HD, Fajardo LL. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of stereotaxic biopsy for nonpalpable breast abnormalities: a decision analysis model. Acad Radiol 1996;3:351-360.
25. Russell LB, Gold MR, Spiegel JE, et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1172-1177.
26. Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 1994;192:39-44.
27. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276: 1253-1258.
28. Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of autologous bone marrow transplantation in metastatic breast cancer: estimates using decision analysis while awaiting clinical trial results. JAMA 1992;267:2055-2061.
29. Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Efficacy and cost effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-negative breast cancer: a decision-analysis model. N Engl J Med 1991;324:160-168.
30. Eddy DM. Screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 1989;111:389-399.
31. Doyle AJ, Murray KA, Nelson EW, et al. Selective use of image-guided large-core needle biopsy of the breast: accuracy and cost-effectiveness. AJR 1995;165:281-284.
32. Physicians Insurers Association of America. The breast cancer study. Washington, DC: Physicians Insurers Association of America, 1995.
33. Bossio V Fiorillo, 210 AD 836, 620 NYS 596 (NY App 1994).