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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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