Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Moore, Susan G ^a   Shenoy, Pareen J ^a   Fanucchi, Laura ^a   Tumeh, John W ^a,b   Flowers, Christopher R ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROBABILITY;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 60849091084     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-9     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Cancer Statistics, 2008. A Jemal R Siegel E Ward Y Hao J Xu T Murray MJ Thun, CA Cancer J Clin 2008 58 71 96 10.3322/CA.2007.0010 18287387
2. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis. TB Bevers BO Anderson E Bonaccio PI Borgen S Buys MB Daly PJ Dempsey WB Farrar I Fleming JE Garber, J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2006 4 480 508 16687096
3. Projecting Individualized Probabilities of Developing Breast Cancer for White Females Who Are Being Examined Annually. MH Gail LA Brinton DP Byar DK Corle SB Green C Schairer JJ Mulvihill, J Natl Cancer Inst 1989 81 1879 1886 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879 2593165
4. Practice Guidelines in Oncology - Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc 2005 1
5. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. L Nystrom I Andersson N Bjurstam J Frisell B Nordenskjold LE Rutqvist, Lancet 2002 359 909 919 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08020-0 11918907
6. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. L Tabar B Vitak HH Chen MF Yen SW Duffy RA Smith, Cancer 2001 91 1724 1731 10.1002/1097-0142(20010501)91: 9〈1724::AID-CNCR1190〉3.0.CO;2-V 11335897
7. Breast MRI as a screening tool: the appropriate role. HT Le-Petross, J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2006 4 523 526 16687098
8. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. DA Berry KA Cronin SK Plevritis DG Fryback L Clarke M Zelen JS Mandelblatt AY Yakovlev JD Habbema EJ Feuer, N Engl J Med 2005 353 1784 1792 10.1056/NEJMoa050518 16251534
9. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. CD Lehman JD Blume P Weatherall D Thickman N Hylton E Warner E Pisano SJ Schnitt C Gatsonis M Schnall GA DeAngelis P Stomper EL Rosen M O'Loughlin S Harms DA Bluemke, Cancer 2005 103 1898 1905 10.1002/cncr.20971 15800894
10. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. E Warner DB Plewes KA Hill PA Causer JT Zubovits RA Jong MR Cutrara G DeBoer MJ Yaffe SJ Messner WS Meschino CA Piron SA Narod, Jama 2004 292 1317 1325 10.1001/jama.292.11.1317 15367553
11. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. M Kriege CT Brekelmans C Boetes PE Besnard HM Zonderland IM Obdeijn RA Manoliu T Kok H Peterse MM Tilanus-Linthorst SH Muller S Meijer JC Oosterwijk LV Beex RA Tollenaar HJ de Koning EJ Rutgers JG Klijn, N Engl J Med 2004 351 427 437 10.1056/NEJMoa031759 15282350
12. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. CK Kuhl S Schrading CC Leutner N Morakkabati-Spitz E Wardelmann R Fimmers W Kuhn HH Schild, J Clin Oncol 2005 23 8469 8476 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.4960 16293877
13. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. SK Plevritis AW Kurian BM Sigal BL Daniel DM Ikeda FE Stockdale AM Garber, JAMA 2006 295 2374 2384 10.1001/jama.295.20.2374 16720823
14. Practical approach for using Medicare data to estimate costs for cost-effectiveness analysis. JW Tumeh SG Moore R Shapiro CR Flowers, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 2005 5 153 162 10.1586/14737167.5.2.153
15. Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. I Griebsch J Brown C Boggis A Dixon M Dixon D Easton R Eeles DG Evans FJ Gilbert J Hawnaur P Kessar SR Lakhani SM Moss A Nerurkar AR Padhani LJ Pointon J Potterton D Thompson LW Turnbull LG Walker R Warren MO Leach, Br J Cancer 2006 95 801 810 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603356 17016484
16. Utilization of screening and preventive surgery among unaffected carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation. S Wainberg J Husted, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004 13 1989 1995 15598752
17. United States life tables, 2002. E Arias, National vital statistics reports Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics 2004 53 15580947
18. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Lancet 2005 365 1687 1717 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0 15894097
19. Decision Analysis of Prophylactic Surgery or Screening for BRCA1 Mutation Carriers: A More Prominent Role For Oophorectomy. MS van Roosmalen LCG Verhoef PFM Stalmeier N Hoogerbrugge WAJ van Daal, J Clin Oncol 2002 20 2092 2100 10.1200/JCO.2002.08.035 11956270
20. Mammography screening for older women with and without cognitive impairment. DC Messecar, J Gerontol Nurs 2000 26 14 24 11272962
21. The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. JCJM de Haes HJ de Koning GJ van Oortmarssen HME van Agt AE de Bruyn PJ van der Maas, International Journal of Cancer 1991 49 538 544 10.1002/ijc.2910490411
22. Quantifying trade-offs: quality of life and quality-adjusted survival in a randomised trial of chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Bernhard D Zahrieh AS Coates RD Gelber M Castiglione-Gertsch E Murray JF Forbes L Perey J Collins R Snyder CM Rudenstam D Crivellari A Veronesi B Thurlimann MF Fey KN Price A Goldhirsch C Hurny, Br J Cancer 2004 91 1893 1901 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602230 15545973
23. HM Levin PJ McEwan, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications Sage Publications, Inc 2 2000
24. Cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer adjuvant treatment: FEC 50 versus FEC 100 (FASG05 study). J Bonneterre C Bercez ME Bonneterre X Lenne B Dervaux, Ann Oncol 2005 16 915 922 10.1093/annonc/mdi195 15894546
25. A fair approach to discounting future effects: taking a societal perspective. W Brouwer B van Hout F Rutten, J Health Serv Res Policy 2000 5 114 118 10947546
26. Possible consequences of applying guidelines to healthy women with a family history of breast cancer. CJ van Asperen RAEM Tollenaar EMM Krol-Warmerdam J Blom WE Hoogendoorn CMJC Seynaeve CTM Brekelmans P Devilee CJ Cornelisse JGM Klijn GH de Bock, Eur J Hum Genet 2003 11 633 636 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201021 12891386