Literature DB >> 15987322

Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status.

Jeanne S Mandelblatt1, Clyde B Schechter, K Robin Yabroff, William Lawrence, James Dignam, Martine Extermann, Sarah Fox, Gretchen Orosz, Rebecca Silliman, Jennifer Cullen, Lodovico Balducci.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Optimal ages of breast cancer screening cessation remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate screening policies based on age and quartiles of life expectancy (LE). DESIGN AND POPULATION: We used a stochastic model with proxies of age-dependent biology to evaluate the incremental U.S. societal costs and benefits of biennial screening from age 50 until age 70, 79, or lifetime. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted incremental costs per life years saved (LYS).
RESULTS: Lifetime screening is expensive (151,434 dollars per LYS) if women have treatment and survival comparable to clinical trials (idealized); stopping at age 79 costs 82,063 dollars per LYS. This latter result corresponds to costs associated with an LE of 9.5 years at age 79, a value expected for 75% of 79-year-olds, about 50% of 80-year-olds, and 25% of 85-year-olds. Using actual treatment and survival patterns, screening benefits are greater, and lifetime screening of all women might be considered (114,905 dollars per LYS), especially for women in the top 25% of LE for their age (50,643 dollars per LYS, life expectancy of approximately 7 years at age 90).
CONCLUSIONS: If all women receive idealized treatment, the benefits of mammography beyond age 79 are too low relative to their costs to justify continued screening. However, if treatment is not ideal, extending screening beyond age 79 could be considered, especially for women in the top 25% of life expectancy for their age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15987322      PMCID: PMC1490138          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0116.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  63 in total

1.  Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; P Salzmann; K A Phillips; J A Cauley; S R Cummings
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-12-08       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Re: prevalence of cancer.

Authors:  T L Lash; R A Silliman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-03-04       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Cost-effectiveness of detecting breast cancer in lower socioeconomic status African American and Hispanic women through mobile mammography services.

Authors:  M E Schweitzer; M T French; S G Ullmann; C B McCoy
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.929

4.  Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making.

Authors:  L C Walter; K E Covinsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-06-06       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Costs of treatment for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer in fee-for-service settings.

Authors:  Joan L Warren; Martin L Brown; Michael P Fay; Nicola Schussler; Arnold L Potosky; Gerald F Riley
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  What threshold for adjuvant therapy in older breast cancer patients?

Authors:  M Extermann; L Balducci; G H Lyman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer.

Authors:  B Fisher; J Costantino; C Redmond; E Fisher; R Margolese; N Dimitrov; N Wolmark; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; L Ore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-06-03       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the "DEALE"). I. Validation of the method.

Authors:  J R Beck; J P Kassirer; S G Pauker
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial.

Authors:  I Andersson; K Aspegren; L Janzon; T Landberg; K Lindholm; F Linell; O Ljungberg; J Ranstam; B Sigfússon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-10-15

10.  Patterns of care related to age of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  S Greenfield; D M Blanco; R M Elashoff; P A Ganz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1987 May 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  27 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening trends in the United States and ethnicity.

Authors:  Patricia Y Miranda; Wassim Tarraf; Patricia González; Michelle Johnson-Jennings; Hector M González
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  The use of life expectancy in cancer screening guidelines. Moving with caution from model-based evidence to evidence-based guidelines.

Authors:  Paula M Lantz; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Spirituality in African-American Breast Cancer Patients: Implications for Clinical and Psychosocial Care.

Authors:  Vanessa B Sheppard; Robin Walker; Winifred Phillips; Victoria Hudson; Hanfei Xu; Mark L Cabling; Jun He; Arnethea L Sutton; Jill Hamilton
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2018-10

4.  Modeling the impact of population screening on breast cancer mortality in the United States.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Donald A Berry; Yaojen Chang; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee; Sylvia K Plevritis; Clyde B Schechter; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.380

5.  Personalizing age of cancer screening cessation based on comorbid conditions: model estimates of harms and benefits.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Roman Gulati; Angela B Mariotto; Clyde B Schechter; Tiago M de Carvalho; Amy B Knudsen; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Chester Pabiniak; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Carolyn M Rutter; Karen M Kuntz; Eric J Feuer; Ruth Etzioni; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Designing clinical trials for early (pre-dementia) Alzheimer's disease: determining the appropriate population for treatment.

Authors:  E Siemers
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.075

7.  Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dan Moore; Karen J Wernli; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Structure, Function, and Applications of the Georgetown-Einstein (GE) Breast Cancer Simulation Model.

Authors:  Clyde B Schechter; Aimee M Near; Jinani Jayasekera; Young Chandler; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

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.  Cost of services provided by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  Donatus U Ekwueme; Sujha Subramanian; Justin G Trogdon; Jacqueline W Miller; Janet E Royalty; Chunyu Li; Gery P Guy; Wesley Crouse; Hope Thompson; James G Gardner
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.