Cost effectiveness of mammography screening for Chinese women

Cancer

Volumn 110, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 885-895

  Wong, Irene O L ^a   Kuntz, Karen M ^b,c   Cowling, Benjamin J ^a   Lam, Cindy L K ^a   Leung, Gabriel M ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Chinese; Cost effectiveness; Mammography; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CHINESE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; HONG KONG; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; SOCIOECONOMICS;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ASIAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HONG KONG; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 34547866691     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22848     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:347-360.
2. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet. 2000;355:129-134.
3. Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM. On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:43-55.
4. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784-1792.
5. Dixon-Woods M, Baum M, Kurinczuk JJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 2001;358:2166-2167; discussion, 2167-2168.
6. Brown ML, Fintor L. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening: preliminary results of a systematic review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1993;25:113-118.
7. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. [Erratum appears in JAMA. 1996;275:112.] JAMA. 1995;274:881-884.
8. Norum J. Breast cancer screening by mammography in Norway. Is it cost-effective? Ann Oncol. 1999;10:197-203.
9. Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. [Erratum appears in Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:878.] Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:955-965.
10. Hong Kong Cancer Registry. Hong Kong cancer statistics, 2002. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Cancer Registry, Hospital Authority. Available at URL: http://www3.ha.org.hk/cancereg/canstat2002.pdf Accessed February 1, 2006.
11. Leung GM, Thach TQ, Lam TH, et al. Trends in breast cancer incidence in Hong Kong between 1973 and 1999: an age-period-cohort analysis. Br J Cancer. 2002;87:982-988.
12. Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, Teppo L, Thomas DB, editors. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. No. VIII. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2002.
13. Leung GM, Lam TH, Thach TQ, Hedley AJ. Will screening mammography in the East do more harm than good? Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1841-1846.
14. SEER Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Cancer Institute. SEER Program: Comparative Staging Guide for Cancer. Version 1.1. NIH Pub. No. 93-3640. Bethesda, Md: National Institute of Health; 1993.
15. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995;273:149-154.
16. Hunink MG, Glasziou PP, Siegel JE, et al. Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values. Cambridge, Mass: University Press; 2001.
17. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1172-1177.
18. Hong Kong Cancer Registry. Hospital Authority, Hong Kong. Available at URL: http//www3.ha.org.hk/cancereg/Accessed February 1, 2006.
19. Ernster VL, Barclay J. Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:151-156.
20. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1546-1554.
21. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER public use CD-ROM program. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Surveillance Program, Cancer Statistics Branch; 1973-2002.
22. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I, et al. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1692-1702.
23. Census and Statistics Department. Hong Kong Life Table 1998-2033. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department; 2005.
24. Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, et al. Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet. 1990;335:241-246.
25. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet. 1999;353:1903-1908.
26. Shapiro S,Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York. Periodic Screening for Breast Cancer: The Health Insurance Plan Project and its Sequelae, 1963-1986. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1988.
27. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. [Erratum appears in Lancet. 2002;360:724.] Lancet. 2002;359:909-919.
28. HKSAR Census and Statistics Department. Hong Kong Annual Digest of Statistics, 2003. Hong Kong: HKSAR Census and Statistics Department; 2003.
29. Finance Division, Hospital Authority. Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Management: Patient-related Groups Costing. Hong Kong: Hospital Authority; 1989-1999.
30. Hong Kong Hospital Authority. List of Charges. S. S. no. 4 to Gazette no. 44/1996. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Hospital Authority; 1996.
31. Taplin SH, Barlow W, Urban N, et al. Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:417-426.
32. Mandelblatt JS, Schechter CB, Yabroff KR, et al. Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2554-2566.
33. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1980.
34. Farria D, Feig S. An introduction to economic issues in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:825-842.
35. Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1373-1377.
36. US Department of Labor. Consumer Price Index. Available at URL: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu Accessed October 1, 2005.
37. Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, O'Brien BJ. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:290-308.
38. Halpern EF, Weinstein MC, Hunink MG, Gazelle GS. Representing both first- and second-order uncertainties by Monte Carlo simulation for groups of patients. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:314-322.
39. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998;7:723-740.
40. Dewilde S, Anderson R. The cost-effectiveness of screening programs using single and multiple birth cohort simulations: a comparison using a model of cervical cancer. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:486-492.
41. Census and Statistics Department. Hong Kong Annual Digest of Statistics. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department; 2003.
42. Ng EH, Ng FC, Tan PH, et al. Results of intermediate measures from a population-based, randomized trial of mammographic screening prevalence and detection of breast carcinoma among Asian women: the Singapore Breast Screening Project. [Erratum appears in Cancer. 1998;83:191.] Cancer. 1998;82:1521-1528.
43. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437-452.
44. Graham JD, Corso PS, Morris JM, Segui-Gomez M, Weinstein MC. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of clinical and public health measures. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:125-152.
45. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Orlistat for treatment of obesity in adults. Technology Appraisal Guidance no. 22. Available at URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=15725 Accessed August 1, 2005.
46. Weinstein MC. High-priced technology can be good value for money. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:857-858.
47. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:1103-1109.
48. Laupacis A. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones? CAMJ. 2002;166:44-47.
49. Leung GM, Lam TH, Hedley AJ. Screening mammography re-evaluated. Lancet. 2000;355:750-751.
50. Chia KS, Reilly M, Tan CS, et al. Profound changes in breast cancer incidence may reflect changes into a Westernized lifestyle: a comparative population-based study in Singapore and Sweden. Int J Cancer. 2005;113:302-306.
51. Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1637-1641.
52. Neumann PJ. Using Cost-effectiveness Analysis to Improve Health Care: Opportunities and Barriers. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
53. Irwig L, Houssami N, van Vliet C. New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:2118-2122.
54. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:358-367.
55. 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;338:1089-1096.