Literature DB >> 1544100

Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective?

A I Mushlin1, L Fintor.   

Abstract

As the toll taken by breast cancer continues unabated, screening programs are widely perceived to play a critical role to improve diagnosis and successful treatment. Breast cancer screening programs are increasingly promoted to women; however, the economic implications of mass screening is a subject of much health policy debate. Cost-effectiveness analysis is an economic methodology widely used to inform such decisions, yet there is a dearth of information available on the economic consequences of mass breast cancer screening. The authors evaluated nine breast cancer screening cost-effectiveness studies that are based on computer simulations, observational trial data, or a combination of both. The results of these studies, conducted in the United States and other countries, indicate that the cost-effectiveness of screening for breast cancer generally compares favorably with other expenditures in the health-care field, although screening younger women does not appear to be as favorable. However, there is considerable variability in the methodology used and a need for more comprehensive research in this area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1544100     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19920401)69:7+<1957::aid-cncr2820691716>3.0.co;2-t

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  10 in total

Review 1.  Unrelated medical costs in life-years gained: should they be included in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions?

Authors:  David R Rappange; Pieter H M van Baal; N Job A van Exel; Talitha L Feenstra; Frans F H Rutten; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Estimating 'costs' for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Alec Miners
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  A reader's guide to the evaluation of screening studies.

Authors:  C Earle; P C Hebert
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 2.401

4.  Routine prenatal screening for HIV in a low-prevalence setting.

Authors:  D M Patrick; D M Money; J Forbes; S R Dobson; M L Rekart; D A Cook; P J Middleton; D R Burdge
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-10-20       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Breast cancer in a county hospital population: impact of breast screening on stage of presentation.

Authors:  A M Leitch; R F Garvey
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  The danger of applying uniform clinical policies across populations: the case of breast cancer in American Indians.

Authors:  P A Nutting; B N Calonge; D C Iverson; L A Green
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial.

Authors:  E Lidbrink; J Elfving; J Frisell; E Jonsson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-02-03

8.  How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision model.

Authors:  John D Keen; James E Keen
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2008-09-21       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Can mechanical imaging increase the specificity of mammography screening?

Authors:  Magnus Dustler; Daniel Förnvik; Pontus Timberg; Ingvar Andersson; Hannie Petersson; Håkan Brorson; Anders Tingberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography; a systematic review.

Authors:  Arash Rashidian; Eshagh Barfar; Hamed Hosseini; Shirin Nosratnejad; Esmat Barooti
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 1.429

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.