Probabilistic cost-effectiveness modeling of different breast cancer screening policies in Slovenia

Value in Health

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 139-148

  Rojnik, Klemen ^a   Naveršnik, Klemen ^b   Mateović Rojnik, Tatjana ^c   PrimicŽakelj, Maja ^d  

^a Roche Doo Farmacevtska Dru ba   (Slovenia)

^b Lek dd   (Slovenia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^d INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Breast cancer screening; Cost effectiveness acceptability frontier; Multiple CEAC; Probabilistic cost effectiveness analysis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SLOVENIA; SOCIOECONOMICS;

EID: 41549103315     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00223.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Cancer Registry of Slovenia. Epidemiology and Cancer Registry. Slovenia : Institute of Oncology Ljubljana.
2. Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders M, et al. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol 1998 27 : 735 42.
3. Habbema JD, van Oortmarssen GJ, Lubbe JT, van der Maas PJ. The MISCAN simulation program for the evaluation of screening for disease. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1985 20 : 79 93.
4. van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD, van der Maas PJ, et al. A model for breast cancer screening. Cancer 1990 66 : 1601 12.
5. Szeto KL, Devlin NJ. The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand. Health Policy 1996 38 : 101 15.
6. Lippman ME. Breast cancer. In : Kasper DL, ed. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (16th ed.). New York : McGraw-Hill, Medical Publishing Division, 2005.
7. Yen MF, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 2003 39 : 1746 54.
8. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993 13 : 322 38.
9. Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 13 : 397 409.
10. SAS OnlineDoc, version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 1999. Available from: http://v8doc.sas.com/sashtml/ [Accessed December 17, 2004].
11. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997 11 : 159 68.
12. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003 6 : 9 17.
13. Pompe-Kirn V, Japelj B, Primic-Žakelj M, et al. Which risk factors could have affected breast cancer incidence in Slovenia in the past, and what are the predictions for this decade. Zdrav Vestn 2001 70 : 341 5.
14. Burstein HJ, Polyak K, Wong JS, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med 2004 350 : 1430 41.
15. Cady B, Chung MA. The prevention of invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004 101 : 2147 51.
16. Paci E, Duffy SW. Modelling the analysis of breast cancer screening programmes: sensitivity, lead time and predictive value in the Florence District Programme (1975-1986). Int J Epidemiol 1991 20 : 852 8.
17. Duffy SW, Chen HH, Tabar L, et al. Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-49. Int J Epidemiol 1996 25 : 1139 45.
18. Brekelmans CT, Westers P, Faber JA, et al. Age specific sensitivity and sojourn time in a breast cancer screening programme (DOM) in the Netherlands: a comparison of different methods. Epidemiol Community Health 1996 50 : 68 71.
19. Michaelson JS, Halpern E, Kopans DB. Breast cancer: computer simulation method for estimating optimal intervals for screening. Radiology 1999 212 : 551 60.
20. Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, et al. A simple model of breast carcinoma growth may provide explanations for observations of apparently complex phenomena. Cancer 2003 97 : 2951 9.
21. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA 1996 276 : 39 43.
22. Perry N, Broeders M, deWolf C, Tornberg S. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening. Luxemburg : Office For Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001.
23. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003 290 : 2129 37.
24. de Haes JC, de Koning HJ, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. Int J Cancer 1991 49 : 538 44.
25. Hutton J, Brown R, Borowitz M, et al. A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1996 9 (Suppl. 2 S8 22.
26. Manning WG, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In : Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al., eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York : Oxford University Press, 1996.
27. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000 17 : 479 500.
28. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998 18 (Suppl. 2 S68 80.
29. Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1999 8 : 257 61.
30. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Schulper M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001 10 : 779 87.
31. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancerscreening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003 53 : 141 69.
32. Drummond FM. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2nd ed.). New York : Oxford University Press, 1997.
33. Karlsson G, Johannesson M. The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1996 9 : 113 20.
34. Sculpher M, Claxton K, Akehurst R. It's just evaluation for decision-making: recent developments in, and challenges for, cost-effectiveness research. In : Smith P, Sculpher M, Ginnelly L, eds. Health Policy and Economics: Opportunities and Challenges. London : McGraw-Hill Education, 2004.
35. Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004 7 : 518 28.
36. Towse A, Pritchard C. Does NICE have a threshold? An external view. In : Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, eds. Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds. Economic and Ethical Issues. London : King's Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002.
37. Brown DW, French MT, Schweitzer ME, et al. Economic evaluation of breast cancer screening: a review. Cancer Pract 1999 7 : 28 33.
38. Arveux P, Wait S, Schaffer P. Building a model to determine the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in France. Eur J Cancer Care 2003 12 : 143 53.
39. de Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, 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.