Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 98, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 774-782

  Stout, Natasha K ^a   Rosenberg, Marjorie A ^b,d   Trentham Dietz, Amy ^b,d   Smith, Maureen A ^b,d   Robinson, Stephen M ^c   Fryback, Dennis G ^b,c,d  

^a HARVARD CENTER FOR RISK ANALYSIS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED STATES; BREAST TUMOR; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE COST; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICS; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIRECT SERVICE COSTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

EID: 33745244264     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj210     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:41-52.
2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:344-6.
3. Breen N, Wagener DK, Brown ML, Davis WW, Ballard-Barbash R. Progress in cancer screening over a decade: Results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, 1998 National Health Interview Surveys. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1704-13.
4. Ries LA, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller AB, Clegg L, et al., eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2000. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2003.
5. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1089-96.
6. Zahl PH, Strand BH, Maehlen J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: Prospective cohort study. BMJ 2004;328:921-4.
7. Brown ML, Fintor L. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening: preliminary results of a systematic review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993;25:113-8.
8. de Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Haes JC, Collette HJA, Hendriks JH, et al. Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int J Cancer 1991;49:531-7.
9. van der Maas PJ, de Koning W, van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD, Lubbe KT, et al. The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Int J Cancer 1989;43:1055-60.
10. van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD, van der Maas PJ, de Koning HJ, Collette HJ, Verbeek AL, et al. A model for breast cancer screening. Cancer 1990;66:1601-12.
11. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist J. The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening strategies. JAMA 1995;274:881-4.
12. Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips KA. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:955-65.
13. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 1996.
14. NCI Statistical Research and Applications Branch. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. 1999. Available from the National Cancer institute at http://cisnet.cancer.gov/. [Last accessed: April 2002.]
15. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant treatment on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784-92.
16. SEER. SEER*Stat Database: Incidence and survival - SEER 9 Regs, Nov 2002 Sub (1973-2000); 2003.
17. Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Kuruchittham V, Remington PL. The Wisconsin breast cancer epidemiology simulation model. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. In press 2006.
18. Stout NK. Quantifying the benefits and risks of screening mammography for women, researchers, and policy makers: An analysis using a simulation model [Dissertation]. University of Wisconsin; 2004.
19. Stout NK, Fryback DG, Rosenberg MA, Remington PL, Trentham-Dietz A, Tappa LM. Construction, verification, and calibration of a discrete event simulation model of breast cancer epidemiology in Wisconsin. Med Decis Making 2002;22:559.
20. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Breast base case parameters. Available from the National Cancer Institute at http://cisnet.cancer.gov/projects/parameters_br.html. [Last accessed: June 2004.]
21. Shwartz M. A Mathematical model used to analyze breast cancer screening strategies. Oper Res 1978;26:937-55.
22. Shwartz M. Validation and use of a mathematical model to estimate the benefits of screening younger women for breast cancer. Cancer Detect Prev 1981;4:595-601.
23. Spratt JA, von Fournier D, Spraft JS, Weber EE. Decelerating growth and human breast cancer. Cancer 1993;71:2013-9.
24. Spratt JS, Spratt JA. Growth rates. In: Donegan WL, Spratt JS, eds. Cancer of the Breast. 5th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Saunders; 2002. pp. 443-76.
25. Kerlikowske K, Barclay J. Outcomes of modern screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22:105-11.
26. Mushlin AL, Kouides RW, Shapiro DE. Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: A meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 1998;14:143-52.
27. Shen Y, Zelen M. Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: Mammograms and physical examinations. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3490-9.
28. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller BM, Mandelson MT, Taplin SH, Malvin K, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:855-63.
29. Mariotto A, Feuer EJ, Harlan LC, Wun LM, Johnson KA, Abrams J. Trends in use of adjuvant multi-agent chemotherapy and tamoxifen for breast cancer in the United States: 1975-1999. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1626-34.
30. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: An overview of randomized clinical trials. Lancet 1998; 352:930-42.
31. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998;351:1451-67.
32. Human Mortality Database. U.S. Female Death Rates by Year of Birth. 2003. Available from University of California, Berkeley (USA), and Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (Germany) at http://www.mortality.org. [Last accessed: March 2003.]
33. Rosenberg MA. Competing Risks. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. In press 2006.
34. EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208.
35. Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, Bell CM, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, et al. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3302-17.
36. Brown ML, Fintor L. U.S. screening mammography services with mobile units: Results from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology 1995;195:529-32.
37. Farria D, Feig SA. An introduction to economic issues in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:825-42.
38. Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Urban N, Mandelson MT, Timlin DJ, Ichikawa L, et al. Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:417-26.
39. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price index, medical care component (U.S. city average, not seasonally adjusted) Series ID: CUUS-0000SAM. 2004. Available from Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm. [Last accessed: April 2004.]
40. Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Input parameter generator interfaces. Available from the National Cancer Institute at http://cisnet.cancer.gov/interfaces/. [Last accessed: June 2004.]
41. Cronin KA, Yu B, Krapchow M, Miglioretti DL, Fay MP, Izmirlan G, et al. Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:701-12.
42. Fishman GS. Common pseudorandom numbers. Discrete-event simulation: modeling, programming and analysis. New York (NY): Springer; 2001. pp. 142-9, 312-5.
43. Law AM, Kelton WD. Simulation modeling and analysis. 3rd ed. Boston (MA): McGraw-Hill; 2000.
44. Mandelblatt JS, Wheat ME, Monane M, Moshief R, Hollenberg JP, Tang J. Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions: A decision analysis model. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116:722-30.
45. Wright JC, Weinstein MC. Gains in life expectancy from medical interventions - standardizing data on outcomes. N Engl J Med 1998;339:380-6.
46. Kerlikowske K, Salzmann P, Phillips KA, Cauley JA, Cummings SR. Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: Impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. JAMA 1999;282:2156-63.
47. Mushlin AI, Fintor L. Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Cancer 1992;69:1957-62.
48. Mandelblatt J, Saha S, Teutsch S, Hoerger T, Sui AL, Atkins D, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 65 years: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:835-42.
49. Mandelblatt JS, Schechter CB, Yabroff KR, Lawrence WF, Dignam J, Muenning P, et al. Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2554-66.
50. Aro AR, Pilvikki Absetz S, van Elderen TM, van der Ploeg E, van der Kamp LJ. False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress - breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:1089-97.
51. Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer 1990;62:1018-22.
52. Lampic C, Thurfjell E, Bergh J, Sjoden PO. Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:463-9.
53. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Parker RA. False-positive screening mammograms: effect of immediate versus later work-up on patient stress. Radiology 2001;218:247-53.
54. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Fletcher SW. Cumulative risk of a false-positive mammogram over a 10-year period. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12:197.