OBJECTIVE: To obtain quality-of-life (QOL) valuations associated with mammography screening and breast cancer treatment that are suitable for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: Subjects comprised 131 women (age range 50-79 years) randomly sampled from a breast cancer screening program. In an in-person or telephone interview, women rated the QOL impact of 14 clinical scenarios (ranging from mammography to end-of-life care for breast cancer) using a visual analogue scale anchored by death (0) and perfect health/quality of life (100). RESULTS: Women rated the scenarios describing true negative results, false positive results, and routine screening mammography at 80 or above on a scale of 0-100, suggesting that they perceive these states as being close to perfect health. They rated adjuvant chemotherapy (39.7; range 10-90), palliation/end-of-life care (35.8; range 0-100), and recurrence at 1 year (33.0; range 0-95) the lowest, suggesting that these health states are perceived as compromised. Women rated receiving news of a breast cancer diagnosis (true positive) (45.7; range 5-100) and receiving delayed news of a breast cancer diagnosis (false negative) (48.5; range 5-100) as being comparable to undergoing mastectomy (48.3; range 10-100) and radiation therapy (46.2; range 5-100) for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These data can be used to update cost analyses of mammography screening that wish to take into account the QOL impact of screening.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain quality-of-life (QOL) valuations associated with mammography screening and breast cancer treatment that are suitable for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: Subjects comprised 131 women (age range 50-79 years) randomly sampled from a breast cancer screening program. In an in-person or telephone interview, women rated the QOL impact of 14 clinical scenarios (ranging from mammography to end-of-life care for breast cancer) using a visual analogue scale anchored by death (0) and perfect health/quality of life (100). RESULTS:Women rated the scenarios describing true negative results, false positive results, and routine screening mammography at 80 or above on a scale of 0-100, suggesting that they perceive these states as being close to perfect health. They rated adjuvant chemotherapy (39.7; range 10-90), palliation/end-of-life care (35.8; range 0-100), and recurrence at 1 year (33.0; range 0-95) the lowest, suggesting that these health states are perceived as compromised. Women rated receiving news of a breast cancer diagnosis (true positive) (45.7; range 5-100) and receiving delayed news of a breast cancer diagnosis (false negative) (48.5; range 5-100) as being comparable to undergoing mastectomy (48.3; range 10-100) and radiation therapy (46.2; range 5-100) for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These data can be used to update cost analyses of mammography screening that wish to take into account the QOL impact of screening.
Authors: J A Kramer; D Curran; M Piccart; J C de Haes; P F Bruning; J G Klijn; M Bontenbal; C van Pottelsberghe; M Groenvold; R Paridaens Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Nancy Breen; Kathleen A Cronin; Helen I Meissner; Stephen H Taplin; Florence K Tangka; Jasmin A Tiro; Timothy S McNeel Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Diego Munoz; Aimee M Near; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald A Berry; Elizabeth S Burnside; Yaojen Chang; Gary Chisholm; Harry J de Koning; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Hui Huang; Natasha K Stout; Brian L Sprague; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Natasha K Stout; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Karla Kerlikowske; Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald Berry; Diana S M Buist; Mucahit Cevik; Gary Chisholm; Harry J de Koning; Hui Huang; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Mark F Munsell; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: Manraj N Kaur; Jiajun Yan; Anne F Klassen; Justin P David; Dilshan Pieris; Manraj Sharma; Louise Bordeleau; Feng Xie Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Aaron N Winn; Matthew Kelly; Shannon Ciprut; Dawn Walter; Heather T Gold; Steven B Zeliadt; Scott E Sherman; Danil V Makarov Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-06-17