Literature DB >> 1917155

The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years.

J C de Haes1, H J de Koning, G J van Oortmarssen, H M van Agt, A E de Bruyn, P J van Der Maas.   

Abstract

Trials have shown that breast cancer screening is effective in reducing breast cancer mortality and gaining life-years. The question is whether taking into account the impact of a screening programme on quality of life would lead to a less positive view. Screening may have effects on quality of life in the short run for women participating and effects in the long run as a result of the expected shift in the number of women experiencing early and advanced phases of the disease, after the initiation of the programme. In this study 4 steps have been taken: (I) published studies on quality of life and breast cancer (screening) up to 1989 have been reviewed and summarized and, based on these data, the consequences of breast cancer and treatment have been described; (2) values have been assigned to the disease and treatment phases by experts in breast cancer and public health (N = 31, response 87%); (3) these values have been inserted in the MISCAN model predicting the prevalence of disease/treatment phases with and without a 2-yearly screening programme for women aged 50-70 and multiplied by the duration of these phases; (4) analyses have been done to establish the sensitivity of the results for the values inserted. The programme of 2-yearly mammographic screening for women aged 50-70 is predicted to be 8% "less effective" (range -19.7 to +3.2%) when computing quality-adjusted life-years. We conclude that this adjustment is too small to attribute a major role to quality of life in the decision to undertake a large-scale breast cancer screening programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1917155     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910490411

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  38 in total

1.  Screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  S Latosinsky
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-04-03       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  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

Review 3.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Cost Effectiveness of Gene Expression Profile Testing in Community Practice.

Authors:  Young Chandler; Clyde B Schechter; Jinani Jayasekera; Aimee Near; Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Charles E Phelps; G Thomas Ray; Tracy A Lieu; Scott Ramsey; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Clinical Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening for Survivors of Childhood Cancer Treated With Chest Radiation : A Comparative Modeling Study.

Authors:  Jennifer M Yeh; Kathryn P Lowry; Clyde B Schechter; Lisa R Diller; Oguzhan Alagoz; Gregory T Armstrong; John M Hampton; Wendy Leisenring; Qi Liu; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kevin C Oeffinger; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Tamoxifen plus chemotherapy versus tamoxifen alone as adjuvant therapies for node-positive postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: a stochastic economic evaluation.

Authors:  Jonathan Karnon; Jackie Brown
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Oguzhan Alagoz; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk.

Authors:  H Amarens Geuzinge; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Emiel J T Rutgers; Sepideh Saadatmand; Ritse M Mann; Jan C Oosterwijk; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Diderick B W de Roy van Zuidewijn; Marc B I Lobbes; Martijne van 't Riet; Maartje J Hooning; Margreet G E M Ausems; Claudette E Loo; Jelle Wesseling; Ernest J T Luiten; Harmien M Zonderland; Cees Verhoef; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

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.  A stochastic economic evaluation of letrozole versus tamoxifen as a first-line hormonal therapy: for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients.

Authors:  Jon Karnon; Trefor Jones
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.