Assessing health care use and cost consequences of a new screening modality: The case of digital mammography

Medical Care

Volumn 50, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1045-1052

  Henderson, Louise M ^a   Hubbard, Rebecca A ^b   Onega, Tracy L ^c,d,e   Zhu, Weiwei ^b   Buist, Diana S M ^b   Fishman, Paul ^b   Tosteson, Anna N A ^c,d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^e DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

cost; false positive; full field digital; health services; mammography screening; medicare; work up

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BILLING AND CLAIMS; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER SCREENING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCREEN FILM MAMMOGRAPHY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84870061238     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318269e0d1     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Cokkinides VBP, Siegel R, Ward EM, et al. Cancer Prevention and Early Detection: Facts & Figures 2008. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2007.
2. Nelson HD, Fu R, Griffin JC, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of medications to reduce risk for primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:703-715. W-226-735.
3. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Review Update No. 74. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.
4. Berman CG. Recent advances in breast-specific imaging. Cancer Control. 2007;14:338-349. (Pubitemid 350272895)
5. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773-1783. (Pubitemid 41549889)
6. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the united states: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155:493-502.
7. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246:376-383.
8. US Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program. 2011. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/ MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/default.htm. Accessed September 7, 2011.
9. Haygood TM, Wang J, Atkinson EN, et al. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:216-220.
10. Haygood TM, Wang J, Lane D, et al. Why does it take longer to read digital than film-screen screening mammograms? A partial explanation. J Digit Imaging. 2010;23:170-180.
11. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148: 1-10. (Pubitemid 351664941)
12. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001-1008. (Pubitemid 27406892)
13. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Available at: http://breast screening.cancer.gov/. Accessed August 29, 2011.
14. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
15. Hsiao WC, Braun P, Dunn DL, et al. An overview of the development and refinement of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. The foundation for reform of U.S. physician payment. Med Care. 1992; 30(suppl 11):NS1-NS12.
16. Reiner BI. Optimizing technology development and adoption in medical imaging using the principles of innovation diffusion, Part I: Theoretical, historical, and contemporary considerations. J Digit Imaging. 2011;24: 750-753.
17. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading- Oslo I study. Radiology. 2003;229: 877-884. (Pubitemid 37467596)
18. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program- the Oslo II Study. Radiology. 2004;232:197-204. (Pubitemid 38787838)
19. Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA, et al. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation. Radiology. 2009;253:632-640.
20. Flobbe K, Bosch AM, Kessels AG, et al. The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1194-1199. (Pubitemid 36613072)
21. Bedrosian I, Bedi D, Kuerer HM, et al. Impact of clinicopathological factors on sensitivity of axillary ultrasonography in the detection of axillary nodal metastases in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1025-1030. (Pubitemid 40486825)
22. Chubak J, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA, et al. Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms. Med Care. 2010;48:815-820.
23. US Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program (MQSA) National Statistics, 2011. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandards ActandProgram/ FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm. Accessed November 28, 2011.