Literature DB >> 16757702

Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography.

Natasha K Stout1, Marjorie A Rosenberg, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Maureen A Smith, Stephen M Robinson, Dennis G Fryback.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many guidelines recommend screening mammography every 1-2 years for women older than 40 years; more than 70% of women now participate in routine screening. No studies have examined the societal impact of screening practices over the past decade in the United States on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We performed a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis comparing actual and alternative screening mammography scenarios.
METHODS: We used a discrete-event simulation model of breast cancer epidemiology to estimate the costs and the number of QALYs that were associated with observed screening mammography patterns in the United States from 1990 to 2000 for women aged 40 years or older. We also estimated costs and QALYS for no screening and for 64 alternative screening scenarios. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key parameters.
RESULTS: Actual U.S. screening patterns from 1990 to 2000 accrued 947.5 million QALYs and cost $166 billion over the lifetimes of the screened women, resulting in a gain of 1.7 million QALYs for an additional cost of $62.5 billion compared with no screening. Among those polices that were not dominated--i.e., for which no alternative existed that produced more QALYs for lower costs--screening all women aged 40-80 years annually per some U.S. guidelines was the most expensive option, costing $58,000 per additional QALY gained compared with the next most costly alternative, screening all women aged 45-80 years annually. Many alternative screening scenarios generated more QALYs for less cost (with savings up to $6 billion) than actual screening patterns over the study period. Sensitivity analysis showed that conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of screening mammography policies were highly sensitive to small, short-term detrimental effects on quality of life from the screening test itself.
CONCLUSIONS: Choosing among the efficient policies to guide current screening recommendations requires consideration of costs to promote participation in screening and measurement of acute quality-of-life effects of mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16757702     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj210

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  82 in total

1.  Risk-specific optimal cancer screening schedules: an application to breast cancer early detection.

Authors:  Charlotte Hsieh Ahern; Yi Cheng; Yu Shen
Journal:  Stat Biosci       Date:  2011-12

2.  Incorporating calibrated model parameters into sensitivity analyses: deterministic and probabilistic approaches.

Authors:  Douglas C A Taylor; Vivek Pawar; Denise T Kruzikas; Kristen E Gilmore; Myrlene Sanon; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Pamela M McMahon; Chung Y Kong; Daniel B Kopans; Paula D Ryan; Elissa M Ozanne; Elkan F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of a low-fat diet in the prevention of breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Antônio M Bós; Barbara V Howard; Shirley A A Beresford; Nicole Urban; Lesley F Tinker; Hugh Waters; Angelo J Bós; Rowan Chlebowski; Jacqueline M Ennis
Journal:  J Am Diet Assoc       Date:  2011-01

6.  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 7.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Oguzhan Alagoz; Natasha K Stout; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kim Dittus; Ted A James; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Elizabeth S Burnside; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  The University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model: An Update.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Mucahit Cevik; Brian L Sprague; Dennis G Fryback; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.