Higher mammography screening costs without appreciable clinical benefit: The case of digital mammography

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 106, Issue 8, 2014, Pages

  Kerlikowske, Karla ^a,b   Hubbard, Rebecca ^c   Tosteson, Anna N A ^d  

^a SAN FRANCISCO VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMORBIDITY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EDITORIAL; FAMILY HISTORY; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MEDICARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ADULT; AGE; AGED; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIRECT SERVICE COSTS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MEDICARE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84906996697     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju191     Document Type: Editorial

References (19)

1. Kerlikowske K. The mammogram that cried Wolfe. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):297-300.
2. 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(17):1773-1783.
3. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard R, Miglioretti D, et al. Comparative-effectiveness of digital vs. film-screen mammography in community practice in the U.S. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):493-502.
4. Food, and, Drug, Administration. MQSA national statistics. 2014. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQuality StandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm.
5. Killelea B, Long J, Chagpar A, et al. The evolution of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population: Clinical and economic implications. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;doi:
6. Henderson LM, Hubbard RA, Onega TL, et al. Assessing health care use and cost consequences of a new screening modality: the case of digital mammography. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1045-1052.
7. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. DMIST Investigators. Costeffectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(1):1-10.
8. Stout N, Lee S, Schechter C, et al. Benefits, harms and costs for breast cancer screening in the US following implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;doi:
9. Fenton J, Foote S, Green P, Baldwin L. Diffusion of computer-aided mammography after mandated Medicare coverage. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(11):987-989.
10. O'Donoghue C, Eklund M, Ozanne E, et al. Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: Comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(3):145-153.
11. Unproven for older women, digital mammography saps Medicare dollars: How GE, Others Used Political Muscle, Advertising to Lure Medicare Into New Procedure by Eaton J, Lucas E, Donald D. January 30, 2011. Updated May 19, 2014. Available at: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/01/30/2166/ unproven-older-women-digital-mammography-saps-medicare-dollars.
12. Schousboe J, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings S. Cost-utility of screening mammography for women age 40 to 80: the effect of breast density. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(1):10-20.
13. Vilaprinyo E, Forné C, Carles M, et al. Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer. Plus One. 2014;9:e86858.
14. Braithwaite D, Zhu W, Hubbard R, et al. Screening outcomes in older U.S. women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(5):334-341.
15. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan B, Humphrey L. Screening for Breast Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727-737.
16. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist L. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359(9310):909-919.
17. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):738-747.
18. Yasmeen S, Hubbard R, Romano P, et al. Mammography use and breast cancer rates among older women with comorbidities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(9):1510-1519.
19. Randolph W, Goodwin J, Mahnken J, Freeman J. Regular mammography use is associated with elimination of age-related disparities in size and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(10):783-790.