Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in the Netherlands

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 137, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 1990-1999

  Sankatsing, Valérie D V ^a   Heijnsdijk, Eveline A M ^a   Van Luijt, Paula A ^a   Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T ^a   Fracheboud, Jacques ^a   De Koning, Harry J ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Age; Breast cancer; Computer simulation; Cost effectiveness; Mammography screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION BIOPSY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NETHERLANDS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK REDUCTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; ULTRASOUND; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84938992530     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29572     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Nederlandse Kankerregistratie. http://www.cijfersoverkanker.nl/. Last accessed January, 2014.
2. Shapiro S,. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP randomized controlled trial. Health insurance plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 27-30.
3. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al., The Swedish two-county trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38: 625-51.
4. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al., Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002; 359: 909-19.
5. Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, et al.,; National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361: 1411-17.
6. Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Verbeek AL, et al.,; National evaluation team for breast cancer. Mammography screening and risk of breast cancer death: a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21: 66-73.
7. 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: 1903-8.
8. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C,. The Canadian national breast screening study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 305-12.
9. Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, et al., Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368: 2053-60.
10. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, III, et al., Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22: 87-92.
11. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, et al., The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42: 793-806.
12. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al., Force USPST. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 727-37, W237-W242.
13. Magnus MC, Ping M, Shen MM, et al., Effectiveness of mammography screening in reducing breast cancer mortality in women aged 39-49 years: a meta-analysis. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2011; 20: 845-52.
14. Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, et al., Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish mammography screening in young women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 2011; 117: 714-22.
15. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al., Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 168-75.
16. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, et al., Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 1432-40.
17. 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: 376-83.
18. American Cancer Society. http://www.cancer.org/. Last accessed: February, 2014.
19. U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 716-26, W-236.
20. NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk. Last accessed May, 2014.
21. Groenewoud JH, Otten JD, Fracheboud J, et al., Netb. Cost-effectiveness of different reading and referral strategies in mammography screening in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007; 102: 211-18.
22. Louwman WJ, Voogd AC, van Dijck JA, et al., On the rising trends of incidence and prognosis for breast cancer patients diagnosed 1975-2004: a long-term population-based study in southeastern Netherlands. Cancer Causes Control 2008; 19: 97-106.
23. de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, Fracheboud J, et al., The effects of population-based mammography screening starting between age 40 and 50 in the presence of adjuvant systemic therap y. Int J Cancer 2015; 137: 165-72.
24. de Gelder R, Bulliard JL, de Wolf C, et al., Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 127-38.
25. National Evaluation Team for Breast cancer screening (NETB). National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands 1990-2007. Twelfth evaluation report. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 2009.
26. de Koning HJ, Boer R, Warmerdam PG, et al., Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish breast cancer-screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 1217-23.
27. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Warwick J, et al., The Gothenburg breast screening trial. Cancer 2003; 97: 2387-96.
28. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 365: 1687-717.
29. National Evaluation Team for Breast cancer screening (NETB). National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands 1990-2011/2012. Thirteenth evaluation report. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 2014.
30. van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, et al.,; Team for breast cancer screening in Netherlands study. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 3517-25.
31. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Breast cancer screening, vol. 7. In: Vainio H, Bianchini F, eds. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. IARC handbooks of cancer and prevention. Lyon: IARC Press, 2002.
32. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A,. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007; 244: 708-17.
33. Perry NM, Patani N, Milner SE, et al., The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 676-82.
34. Timmers JM, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Zonderland HM, et al., The breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1717-23.
35. Bailey SL, Sigal BM, Plevritis SK,. A simulation model investigating the impact of tumor volume doubling time and mammographic tumor detectability on screening outcomes in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 1263-71.
36. Neumann PJ,. Costing and perspective in published cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 2009; 47: S28 -S 32.
37. Saadatmand S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Rutgers EJ, et al., Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105: 1314-21.
38. de Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, de Haes JC, et al., Advanced breast cancer and its prevention by screening. Br J Cancer 1992; 65: 950-5.
39. Huisarts en Wetenschap 2002;4:194-98.
40. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/. Last accessed January, 2014.
41. 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.
42. Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, et al., Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 774-82.
43. Otten JD, Fracheboud J, den Heeten GJ, et al., Likelihood of early detection of breast cancer in relation to false-positive risk in life-time mammographic screening: population-based cohort study. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 2501-6.
44. Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Hammond CS, et al., Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 954-61.
45. 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: 738-47.
46. Carles M, Vilaprinyo E, Cots F, et al., Cost-effectiveness of early detection of breast cancer in Catalonia (Spain). BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 192.
47. Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, et al., Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 10-20.
48. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al., DMIST Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 1-10.
49. Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, et al., Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106: dju092.
50. Chapman RH, Berger M, Weinstein MC, et al., When does quality-adjusting life-years matter in cost-effectiveness analysis? Health Econ 2004; 13: 429-36.
51. de Kok IM, van Rosmalen J, Dillner J, et al., Primary screening for human papillomavirus compared with cytology screening for cervical cancer in European settings: cost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch microsimulation model. BMJ 2012; 344: e670.
52. de Boer PT, Pouwels KB, Cox JM, et al., Cost-effectiveness of vaccination of the elderly against herpes zoster in the Netherlands. Vaccine 2013; 31: 1276-83.
53. Verhoef TI, Redekop WK, Hasrat F, et al., Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settings. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2014; 14: 451-62.