Literature DB >> 17347845

The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30-49.

Richard P A Norman1, D Gareth Evans, Douglas F Easton, Kenneth C Young.   

Abstract

Recent evidence has investigated the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in younger women with a BRCA1 mutation. However, this evidence has not been contrasted with existing cost-effectiveness standards to determine whether screening is appropriate, given limited societal resources. We constructed a Markov model investigating surveillance tools (mammography, MRI, both in parallel) under a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. The key benefit of MRI is that increased sensitivity leads to early detection, and improved prognosis. For a 30- to 39-year-old cohort, the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of mammography relative to no screening was 5,200 pounds. The addition of MRI to this costs 13,486 pounds per QALY. For a 40- to 49-year-old cohort, the corresponding values were 2,913 pounds and 7,781 pounds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis supported the cost-effectiveness of the parallel approach of mammography and MRI. It is necessary to extend this analysis beyond BRCA1 carriers within this age group, and also to other age groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17347845     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-007-0042-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  15 in total

1.  A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Authors:  Elisabeth Fenwick; Sarah Byford
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 9.319

2.  Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening.

Authors:  K Johnston; J Brown; K Gerard; M O'Hanlon; A Morton
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Risk and benefit associated with radiation dose in breast screening programmes--an update.

Authors:  J Law
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England and Wales.

Authors:  M P Coleman; P Babb; A Sloggett; M Quinn; B De Stavola
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).

Authors:  M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 21-27       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Does screen-detected breast cancer have better survival than symptomatic breast cancer?

Authors:  M M Yassin; A L G Peel; W D Thompson; J Patton; V Ashton; D J Leaper
Journal:  Asian J Surg       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.767

8.  Stage and survival in breast cancer patients in screened and non-screened Danish and Swedish populations.

Authors:  Anni R Jensen; Jens P Garne; Hans H Storm; Marianne Ewertz; Søren Cold; Thor Alvegaard; Jens Overgaard
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.089

9.  Prognosis of screen-detected breast cancers: results of a population based study.

Authors:  Laura Cortesi; Vincenzo E Chiuri; Silvia Ruscelli; Valeria Bellelli; Rossella Negri; Ivan Rashid; Claudia Cirilli; Antonella Fracca; Ennio Gallo; Massimo Federico
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2006-01-23       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  I Griebsch; J Brown; C Boggis; A Dixon; M Dixon; D Easton; R Eeles; D G Evans; F J Gilbert; J Hawnaur; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; J Potterton; D Thompson; L W Turnbull; L G Walker; R Warren; M O Leach
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-10-09       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  11 in total

1.  Eligibility for magnetic resonance imaging screening in the United Kingdom: effect of strict selection criteria and anonymous DNA testing on breast cancer incidence in the MARIBS Study.

Authors:  D Gareth R Evans; Fiona Lennard; Linda J Pointon; Susan J Ramus; Simon A Gayther; Nayanta Sodha; Gek E Kwan-Lim; Martin O Leach; Ruth Warren; Deborah Thompson; Douglas F Easton; Rosalind Eeles
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 2.  Systematic review: surveillance for breast cancer in women treated with chest radiation for childhood, adolescent, or young adult cancer.

Authors:  Tara O Henderson; Alison Amsterdam; Smita Bhatia; Melissa M Hudson; Anna T Meadows; Joseph P Neglia; Lisa R Diller; Louis S Constine; Robert A Smith; Martin C Mahoney; Elizabeth A Morris; Leslie L Montgomery; Wendy Landier; Stephanie M Smith; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Cancer screening with digital mammography for women at average risk for breast cancer, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women at high risk: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2010-03-01

4.  Recommendations for breast cancer surveillance for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer given chest radiation: a report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group.

Authors:  Renée L Mulder; Leontien C M Kremer; Melissa M Hudson; Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Gill Levitt; Louis S Constine; W Hamish Wallace; Flora E van Leeuwen; Cécile M Ronckers; Tara O Henderson; Mary Dwyer; Roderick Skinner; Kevin C Oeffinger
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  Dealing with family history of breast cancer: something new, something old.

Authors:  Nadeem Qureshi; Norma O'Flynn; Gareth Evans
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Cost-effectiveness of MRI for breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Reka Pataky; Linlea Armstrong; Stephen Chia; Andrew J Coldman; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Barbara McGillivray; Jenna Scott; Christine M Wilson; Stuart Peacock
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Breast cancer risk assessment in 8,824 women attending a family history evaluation and screening programme.

Authors:  D Gareth R Evans; Sarah Ingham; Sarah Dawe; L Roberts; F Lalloo; A R Brentnall; P Stavrinos; Anthony Howell
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35-39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02).

Authors:  D G Evans; S Thomas; J Caunt; L Roberts; A Howell; M Wilson; R Fox; D M Sibbering; S Moss; M G Wallis; D M Eccles; S Duffy
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 9.  Breast cancer screening in high risk women.

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 10.  Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening - a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions.

Authors:  Matthias Arnold
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.