Computer-aided detection of breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness study

Radiology

Volumn 239, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 710-717

  Lindfors, Karen K ^a   McGahan, Michele C ^a   Rosenquist, C Jonh ^a   Hurlock, Gregory S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALCULATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MARGINAL COST PER YEAR OF LIFE SAVED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVIVAL RATE; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 33744814928     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2392050670     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:855-863.
2. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mamrnography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:543-549.
3. Sickles EA. Quality assurance: how to audit your own mammography practice. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:265-275.
4. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781-786.
5. Brem RF, Baum J, Lechner M, et al. Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multi-institutional trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:687-693.
6. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988;297:943-948.
7. American Cancer Society. Rreast cancer facts and figures. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 1999-2000; 7.
8. Legorreta AP, Brooks RJ, Leibowitz AN, Solin LJ. Cost of breast cancer treatment: a 4-year longitudinal study. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:2197-2201.
9. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215:554-562.
10. [Published correction appears in Radiology 2000;216:306.]
11. Baker LH. Breast cancer detection demonstration project: 5-year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 1982;32:194-225.
12. Seltzer MH. Breast complaints, biopsies, and cancer correlated with age in 10,000 consecutive new surgical referrals. Breast J 2004;10:111-117.
13. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration and Bureau of the Census. Vital statistics: statistical abstract of the United States. 111th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991; 84.
14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2003 Physicians fee schedule, APC codes. Federal Register 2002;67:66717-66913.
15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program: revision to payment policies under the physician fee schedule for calendar year 2003. Federal Register 2002;67:79965-80184.
16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2003 Physicians fee schedule. Federal Register 2003;68:9567-9580.
17. Linver MN. Practice operations: coding and billing-2003 update. The Society of Breast imaging 6th Postgraduate Cotn-se Syllabus, 2003; 45-54.
18. McDonough KL. Breast cancer stage cost analysis in a managed care population. Am J Manag Care 1999;5(suppl 6):S377-S382.
19. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast, cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancel Inst 2004;96:185-190.
20. U.S. Census Bureau. Vital statistics: statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. US National Center for Health Statistics, 2003:84.
21. Helvie MA, Hadjiiski L, Makariou E, et al. Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial. Radiology 2004;231:208-214.
22. Cupples TE. Impact of computer-aided detection (CAD) in a regional screening mammography program (abstr). Radiology 2001;221(P):520.
23. Gold MH, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.
24. Tengs TO. Cost-effectiveness versus cost-utility analysis of interventions for cancer: does adjusting for health-related quality of life really matter? Value Health 2004;7(1):70-78.
25. Duffy SW, Tabár L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties: a collaborative evaluation. Cancer 2002;95:458-469.
26. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2001;91:1724-1731.
27. National Cancer Institute. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2001. National Cancel-Institute Web site, http://srab.cancer.gov/devcan/. Accessed August 15, 2004.