Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Volumn 79, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 199-206

  Liang, Wenchi ^a,e   Lawrence, William F ^a   Burnett, Caroline B ^a,b   Hwang, Yi Ting ^a   Freedman, Matthew ^c   Trock, Bruce J ^c,d   Mandelblatt, Jeanne S ^a   Lippman, Marc E ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^e GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biopsy; Breast cancer; Breast magnetic resonance imaging; Digital mammography; Satisfaction; Tc 99m sestamibi scanning; Test acceptability; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

METHOXY ISOBUTYL ISONITRILE TECHNETIUM TC 99M;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; TRIAGE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0038018478     PISSN: 01676806     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023914612152     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Osteen RT, Cady B, Chmiel JS: 1991 National survey of carcinoma of the breast by the commission on cancer. J Am Coll Surgeons 178: 213-219, 1991
2. Winchester DP, Senen S, Immerman S, Blum MA: A systematic approach to the evaluation and management of breast masses. Cancer 51: 2535-2540, 1983
3. Artz D, Blume E: Too many breast biopsies? Watching vs. cutting. J Natl Cancer I 83: 1207-1209, 1991
4. Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE: Quality of life following a positive mammogram. Brit J Cancer 62: 1108-1122, 1990
5. Parker RG: The 'cost-effecfiveness' of radiology and radiologists. Radiology 189: 363-369, 1993
6. Klaus AJ, Kingensmith III WC, Parker SH, Stavros AT, Sutherland JD, Aldrete KD: Comparative value of 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography and sonography in the diagnostic workup of breast masses. AJR 174: 1779-1783, 2000
7. Alonso O, Massado T, Delgado LB, Horvath J, Kabasakal L, Llamas-Olier A, Maunda KK, Morales R, Padhy AK, Shankar UR: Is (99m) Tc-sestamibi scintimammography complementary to conventional mammography for detecting breast cancer in patients with palpable masses? J Nucl Med 42: 1614-1621, 2001
8. Orel SG: MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin N Am 83: 122-126, 2000
9. Brown J, Buckley D, Coulthard A, Dixon AK, Dixion JM, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, Gilbert FG, Graves M, Hayes C, Jenkins JP, Jones AP, Keevil SF, Leach MO, Liney GP, Moss SM, Padhani AR, Parker GJ, Pointon LJ, Ponder BA, Redpath TW, Sloane JP, Turnbull LW, Walker LG, Warren RM: Magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer: imaging and analysis protocol for the UK multicentre study. UK MRI Breast Screening Study Advisory Group. Magn Reson Imaging 18: 765-776, 2000
10. Rubin HR, Gandek B, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, McHorney CA, Ware JE: Patients' ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 270: 835-840, 1993
11. Olsen JA, Smith RD: Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. Health Econ 10: 39-52, 2001
12. Frew E, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK: Willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 37: 1746-1751, 2001
13. Wagner TH, Hu T, Duenas GV, Kaplan CP, Nguyen BH, Pasick RJ: Does willingness to pay vary by race/ethnicity? An analysis using mammography among low-income women. Health Policy 58: 275-288, 2001
14. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR: Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. J Health Econ 20: 441-457, 2001
15. Taylor SJ, Armour CL: Measurement of consumer preference for treatments used to induce labour: a willingness-to-pay approach. Health Expect 3: 203-216, 2001
16. Loeken K, Steine S, Sandvik L, Laerum E, Finset A: A new measure of patient satisfaction with mammography. Validation by factor analytic technique. Fam Pract 13: 67-74, 1996
17. Keefe FJ, Hauck ER, Egert J, Rimer B, Kornguth P: Mammography pain and discomfort: a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Pain 56: 247-260, 1994