Literature DB >> 14623621

The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 65 years: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Jeanne Mandelblatt1, Somnath Saha, Steven Teutsch, Tom Hoerger, Albert L Siu, David Atkins, Jonathan Klein, Mark Helfand.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: There are few data on the effects of disease biology and competing mortality on the effectiveness of screening women for breast cancer after age 65 years. The authors performed a review to determine the costs and benefits of mammography screening after age 65 years. DATA SOURCES: Cost-effectiveness articles published between January 1989 and March 2002. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were identified by using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. The authors included research on screening after age 65 years conducted from a societal or government perspective; reviews and analyses of other technologies were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: 115 studies were identified and 10 met inclusion criteria. One study modeled age-dependent assumptions of disease biology. No study fully captured the potential harms of screening, including anxiety associated with false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and previous knowledge of cancer or living longer with the consequences of treatment. Studies differed in the specific strategies compared and in analytic approaches. On average, extending biennial screening to age 75 or 80 years was estimated to cost 34 000 dollars to 88 000 dollars (2002 U.S. dollars) per life-year gained, compared with stopping screening at age 65 years. Two studies suggested that it was more cost-effective to target healthy women than those with several competing risks for death.
CONCLUSIONS: Current estimates suggest that biennial breast cancer screening after age 65 years reduces mortality at reasonable costs for women without clinically significant comorbid conditions. More data are needed on disease biology and preferences for benefits and harms in older women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14623621     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-139-10-200311180-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  34 in total

1.  Incorporating texture features in a computer-aided breast lesion diagnosis system for automated three-dimensional breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Haixia Liu; Tao Tan; Jan van Zelst; Ritse Mann; Nico Karssemeijer; Bram Platel
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-07-25

2.  Visual screening for malignant melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Elena Losina; Rochelle P Walensky; Alan Geller; Frederick C Beddingfield; Lindsey L Wolf; Barbara A Gilchrest; Kenneth A Freedberg
Journal:  Arch Dermatol       Date:  2007-01

Review 3.  The influence of aging on the early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Marisa F Siebel; Hyman B Muss
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  A review of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rima Tawk; Vassiki Sanogo; Vakaramoko Diaby; Hong Xiao; Alberto J Montero
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-04-19       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Treading water: the no-growth investment in health services research.

Authors:  Emily J Holubowich; Joseph R Antos
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2008-07

7.  Decision making and counseling around mammography screening for women aged 80 or older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Radhika A Ramanan; Ellen P McCarthy; Edward R Marcantonio
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Screening for cancer: valuable or not?

Authors:  Frank L Meyskens
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 9.  Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries.

Authors:  Meteb Al-Foheidi; Mubarak M Al-Mansour; Ezzeldin M Ibrahim
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.064

10.  Consensus guidelines in the management of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Edward S Huang; G Scott Gazelle; Chin Hur
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-10-16       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.