Literature DB >> 18491102

Utilization and cost of diagnostic imaging and biopsies following positive screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands, 2000-2005.

Lucien E M Duijm1, Johanna H Groenewoud, Jacques Fracheboud, Menno L Plaisier, Rudi M H Roumen, B Martin van Ineveld, Mike van Beek, Harry J de Koning.   

Abstract

We prospectively assessed trends in utilization and costs of diagnostic services of screen-positive women in a biennial breast cancer screening program for women aged 50-75 years. All 2,062 women with suspicious findings at screening mammography in the southern region of the Netherlands between 1 January 2000 and 1 July 2005 (158,997 screens) were included. Data were collected on any diagnostic examinations, interventional procedures, and surgical consultations with two-year follow-up. We used national reimbursement rates to estimate imaging costs and percutaneous biopsy costs. Cost prices, charged by hospitals, were used to estimate open surgical biopsy costs and surgical consultation costs. The largest increase in utilization of diagnostic procedures per 100 referrals was observed for axillary ultrasound (from 3.9 in 2000 to 33.5 in 2005) and for stereotactic core biopsy (from 2.1 in 2000 to 26.8 in 2005). Per 100 referrals, the open surgical biopsy rate decreased from 34.7 (2000) to 4.6 (2005) and the number of outpatient surgical consultations fluctuated between 269.8 (2000) and 309.7 (2004). Mean costs for the diagnosis of one cancer were Euro1,501 and ranged from Euro1,223 (2002) to Euro1,647 (2003). Surgical biopsies comprised 54.1% of total diagnostic costs for women screened in 2000, but decreased to 9.9% for women screened in 2005. Imaging costs increased from 23.7 to 43.8%, percutaneous biopsy costs from 9.9 to 27.2%, and consultation costs from 12.3 to 19.1%. We conclude that diagnostic costs per screen-detected cancer remained fairly stable through the years, although huge changes in the use of different diagnostic procedures were observed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18491102     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1043-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  24 in total

Review 1.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Screening mammography: costs and use of screening-related services.

Authors:  Steven P Poplack; Patricia A Carney; Julia E Weiss; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Martha E Goodrich; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.

Authors:  Johannes D M Otten; Nico Karssemeijer; Jan H C L Hendriks; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jacques Fracheboud; André L M Verbeek; Harry J de Koning; Roland Holland
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-05-18       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Talya Salz; Sarah E Lillie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Comparison of early performance indicators for screening projects within the European Breast Cancer Network: 1989-2000.

Authors:  M J M Broeders; A Scharpantgen; N Ascunce; B Gairard; A H Olsen; P Mantellini; T Cerdá Mota; E Van Limbergen; B Séradour; A Ponti; L Salas Trejo; L Nyström
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  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

7.  Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Corinne Balleyguier; Felix Diekmann; Susanne Diekmann; Jean-Charles Piguet; Kari Young; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Lower costs of hospital treatment of breast cancer through a population-based mammography screening programme.

Authors:  Lea Kauhava; Pirjo Immonen-Räihä; Ilmo Parvinen; Hans Helenius; Anne Kaljonen; Osmo Räsänen; Liisa Pylkkänen; Pekka J Klemi
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.367

9.  MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements.

Authors:  Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jan H C L Hendriks; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

Authors:  S Taylor-Phillips; M G Wallis; A G Gale
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.

Authors:  Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Gerard J den Heeten; Luc J A Strobbe; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Authors:  Wikke Setz-Pels; Lucien E M Duijm; Marieke W J Louwman; Rudi M H Roumen; Frits H Jansen; Adri C Voogd
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Time trends and geographic variation in use of minimally invasive breast biopsy.

Authors:  Christopher J Zimmermann; Kristin M Sheffield; Casey B Duncan; Yimei Han; Catherine D Cooksley; Courtney M Townsend; Taylor S Riall
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study.

Authors:  Joost Nederend; Lucien Em Duijm; Adri C Voogd; Johanna H Groenewoud; Frits H Jansen; Marieke Wj Louwman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.

Authors:  L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 7.640

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.