Literature DB >> 2499553

The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.

P J van der Maas1, H J de Koning, B M van Ineveld, G J van Oortmarssen, J D Habbema, K T Lubbe, A T Geerts, H J Collette, A L Verbeek, J H Hendriks.   

Abstract

The costs and effects of different invitation schedules of breast cancer screening are compared. The effect estimates are based on trials from the USA, Sweden and the Netherlands. The cost estimates use registration data, file studies and organization charts. The calculations were performed with the MISCAN computer simulation package, which is developed especially for the evaluation of mass screening programmes. Screening women of 50-70 years at 2-yearly intervals is a relatively cost-effective schedule. In a real population, it will reduce breast cancer mortality by 12%. Screening of women under 50 is probably far less cost-effective. Screening induces a considerable shift towards breast-conserving therapy. Although a 12% mortality reduction may seem low, in absolute numbers this represents more than the total mortality from, e.g., cervical cancer. Moreover, cost per death prevented or per life-year saved is much lower than for most other medical interventions for which cost-effectiveness ratios are known, screening for cervical cancer included.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2499553     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910430617

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


  14 in total

1.  Cancer screening in older adults.

Authors:  J M Walsh
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1992-05

Review 2.  Is there a role for preference assessments in research on quality of life in oncology?

Authors:  J E Till; H J Sutherland; E M Meslin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Wen Chan; Yu-Chia Chang; Deborah J del Junco; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  2010-08-06

Review 5.  Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening: preliminary results of a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  M L Brown; L Fintor
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Assessing prevention effectiveness using data to drive program decisions.

Authors:  S B Thacker; J P Koplan; W R Taylor; A R Hinman; M F Katz; W L Roper
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.792

7.  To screen or not to screen for breast cancer? How do modelling studies answer the question?

Authors:  R G Koleva-Kolarova; Z Zhan; M J W Greuter; T L Feenstra; G H De Bock
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

8.  Mammographic screening: measurement of the cost in a population based programme in Victoria, Australia.

Authors:  S F Hurley; P M Livingston; N Thane; L Quang
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Use of hospital services by breast cancer patients by stage of the disease: implications on the costs of cancer control.

Authors:  H Kaija; H Matti; H Tapani
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  The danger of applying uniform clinical policies across populations: the case of breast cancer in American Indians.

Authors:  P A Nutting; B N Calonge; D C Iverson; L A Green
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.