Literature DB >> 20868891

Cost-effectiveness of mammography, MRI, and ultrasonography for breast cancer screening.

Stephen Feig1.   

Abstract

Screening mammography performed annually on all women beginning at age 40 years has reduced breast cancer deaths by 30% to 50%. The cost per year of life saved is well within the range for other commonly accepted medical interventions. Various studies have estimated that reduction in treatment costs through early screening detection may be 30% to 100% or more of the cost of screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening is also cost-effective for very high-risk women, such as BRCA carriers, and others at 20% or greater lifetime risk. Further studies are needed to determine whether MRI is cost-effective for those at moderately high (15%-20%) lifetime risk. Future technical advances could make MRI more cost-effective than it is today. Automated whole-breast ultrasonography will probably prove cost-effective as a supplement to mammography for women with dense breasts.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20868891     DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2010.06.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am        ISSN: 0033-8389            Impact factor:   2.303


  21 in total

1.  Secondary prevention at 360°: the important role of diagnostic imaging.

Authors:  Anna Micaela Ciarrapico; Guglielmo Manenti; Chiara Pistolese; Sebastiano Fabiano; Roberto Fiori; Andrea Romagnoli; Gianluigi Sergiacomi; Matteo Stefanini; Giovanni Simonetti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Imaging tumor growth non-invasively using expression of MagA or modified ferritin subunits to augment intracellular contrast for repetitive MRI.

Authors:  Roja Rohani; Rene Figueredo; Yves Bureau; James Koropatnick; Paula Foster; R Terry Thompson; Frank S Prato; Donna E Goldhawk
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  Utility of Diffusion-weighted Imaging to Decrease Unnecessary Biopsies Prompted by Breast MRI: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (A6702).

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography based on photon-counting detectors: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Huanjun Ding; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Evolution of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population: clinical and economic implications.

Authors:  Brigid K Killelea; Jessica B Long; Anees B Chagpar; Xiaomei Ma; Rong Wang; Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Importance of cost-effectiveness and value in cancer care and healthcare policy.

Authors:  Ravinder Kang; Philip P Goodney; Sandra L Wong
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.454

7.  Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography.

Authors:  Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri; Craig K Abbey; Peymon Gazi; Nicolas D Prionas; Anita Nosratieh; Chin-Shang Li; John M Boone; Karen K Lindfors
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  Jessica E Cott Chubiz; Janie M Lee; Michael E Gilmore; Chung Y Kong; Kathryn P Lowry; Elkan F Halpern; Pamela M McMahon; Paula D Ryan; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Use of lung cancer screening tests in the United States: results from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  V Paul Doria-Rose; Mary C White; Carrie N Klabunde; Marion R Nadel; Thomas B Richards; Timothy S McNeel; Juan L Rodriguez; Pamela M Marcus
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Mean Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Is a Sufficient Conventional Diffusion-weighted MRI Metric to Improve Breast MRI Diagnostic Performance: Results from the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group A6702 Diffusion Imaging Trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Justin Romanoff; Habib Rahbar; Averi E Kitsch; Sara M Harvey; Jennifer G Whisenant; Thomas E Yankeelov; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak E Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Lisa J Wilmes; Nola M Hylton; Karen Y Oh; Luminita A Tudorica; Colleen H Neal; Dariya I Malyarenko; Christopher E Comstock; Mitchell D Schnall; Thomas L Chenevert; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.