Literature DB >> 10531098

Two view mammography at incident screens: cost effectiveness analysis of policy options.

K Johnston1, J Brown.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of two view mammography at incident screens.
DESIGN: Incremental cost effectiveness analyses recognising differences in current reading policy, based on effectiveness data from an observational study.
SETTING: Breast screening programmes in England and Wales. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health service costs, cancers detected, incremental cost effectiveness ratios per cancer detected, whole time equivalent staff.
RESULTS: For programmes currently using one view with some form of double reading, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio of two view mammography at incident screens ranged between 6589 pounds and 6716 pounds, depending on the reading policy. For programmes currently using one view with single reading, two policy options were found to be more efficient than two view single reading: one view with double reading (arbitration; incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 210 pounds) and two view double reading (arbitration). If programmes using one view with single reading changed to double reading (arbitration) and then subsequently to two views double reading (arbitration), additional cancers could be detected with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 7983. The implementation cost of two view mammography at incident screens in programmes in England and Wales would be 2.9 million pounds and would require 13.4 whole time equivalent radiologists.
CONCLUSIONS: The cost effectiveness of two view mammography at incident screens depends on the film reading policy. A policy of two view mammography at incident screens in England and Wales would be efficient only if programmes using single reading moved to double reading. Given limited resources, priority should be given to introducing double reading in the subset of programmes currently using single reading as this requires fewer additional radiologists and is more cost effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10531098      PMCID: PMC28259          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7217.1097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  9 in total

1.  The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  G Karlsson; M Johannesson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.

Authors:  A Laupacis; D Feeny; A S Detsky; P X Tugwell
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: use of indirect standardisation in evaluating the invasive cancer detection rate.

Authors:  R G Blanks; N E Day; S M Moss
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.136

4.  A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme.

Authors:  R G Blanks; M G Wallis; S M Moss
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms.

Authors:  J Brown; S Bryan; R Warren
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-30

Review 6.  Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis.

Authors:  A Briggs; M Sculpher; M Buxton
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of two view versus one view procedures in London.

Authors:  S Bryan; J Brown; R Warren
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience.

Authors:  R M Warren; S W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  N J Wald; P Murphy; P Major; C Parkes; J Townsend; C Frost
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-11-04
  9 in total
  3 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contraindications.

Authors:  Cam Donaldson; Gillian Currie; Craig Mitton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-10-19

2.  Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  I Griebsch; J Brown; C Boggis; A Dixon; M Dixon; D Easton; R Eeles; D G Evans; F J Gilbert; J Hawnaur; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; J Potterton; D Thompson; L W Turnbull; L G Walker; R Warren; M O Leach
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-10-09       Impact factor: 7.640

3.  Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model.

Authors:  Paul D P Pharoah; Bernadette Sewell; Deborah Fitzsimmons; Hayley S Bennett; Nora Pashayan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-05-09
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.