Literature DB >> 22922432

Assessing health care use and cost consequences of a new screening modality: the case of digital mammography.

Louise M Henderson1, Rebecca A Hubbard, Tracy L Onega, Weiwei Zhu, Diana S M Buist, Paul Fishman, Anna N A Tosteson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has largely replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) for breast cancer screening, but how this affects downstream breast-related use and costs is unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To compare breast-related health care use and costs among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SFM versus FFDM from 1999 to 2005.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SUBJECTS: Medicare-enrolled women aged 66 and older with mammograms in Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. MEASURES: Subsequent follow-up with additional imaging or breast biopsy within 12 months was ascertained through Medicare claims. Associated mean costs were estimated by screening modality and year, adjusting for confounding factors, and clustering within mammography facilities using Generalized Estimating Equations.
RESULTS: Among 138,199 women, 332,324 SFM and 22,407 FFDM mammograms were analyzed. Approximately 6.5% of SFM and 9.0% of FFDM had positive findings. In 2001, subsequent imaging was higher among FFDM versus SFM (127.5 vs. 97.4 follow-up mammography claims per 1000 index mammograms), whereas subsequent biopsy was lower among FFDM versus SFM (19.2 vs. 24.9 per 1000 index mammograms) with differences decreasing over time. From 2001 to 2004, mammography subsequent to FFDM had higher mean costs than SFM ($82.60 vs. $64.31 in 2001). The only cost differences between SFM and FFDM for ultrasound or biopsy were in 2001.
CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent breast-related health care use differed early in FFDM introduction, but diminished over time with differences attributable to higher recall rates for additional imaging and lower rates of biopsy in those undergoing FFDM versus SFM. Remaining cost differences are because of higher reimbursement rates for FFDM versus SFM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22922432      PMCID: PMC3650634          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318269e0d1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  17 in total

Review 1.  An overview of the development and refinement of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. The foundation for reform of U.S. physician payment.

Authors:  W C Hsiao; P Braun; D L Dunn; E R Becker; D Yntema; D K Verrilli; E Stamenovic; S P Chen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

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.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Kari Young; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10-23       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Recent advances in breast-specific imaging.

Authors:  Claudia G Berman
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.302

9.  The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  Karin Flobbe; Anne Marie Bosch; Alfons G H Kessels; Geerard L Beets; Patricia J Nelemans; Maarten F von Meyenfeldt; Joseph M A van Engelshoven
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-05-26

10.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  7 in total

1.  Utilization and Cost of Mammography Screening Among Commercially Insured Women 50 to 64 Years of Age in the United States, 2012-2016.

Authors:  Jaya S Khushalani; Donatus U Ekwueme; Thomas B Richards; Susan A Sabatino; Gery P Guy; Yuanhui Zhang; Florence Tangka
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 2.  The Empirical Foundations of Teleradiology and Related Applications: A Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Rashid L Bashshur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; James H Thrall; Noura Bashshur
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 3.536

3.  Transition from film to digital mammography: impact for breast cancer screening through the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Lisanne van Lier; Clyde B Schechter; Donatus U Ekwueme; Janet Royalty; Jacqueline W Miller; Aimee M Near; Kathleen A Cronin; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.

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

7.  Costs, evidence, and value in the Medicare program: the challenges of technology innovation in breast cancer prevention and control.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Anna N A Tosteson; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 21.873

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.