Literature DB >> 25847639

National expenditure for false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses estimated at $4 billion a year.

Mei-Sing Ong1, Kenneth D Mandl2.   

Abstract

Populationwide mammography screening has been associated with a substantial rise in false-positive mammography findings and breast cancer overdiagnosis. However, there is a lack of current data on the associated costs in the United States. We present costs due to false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses among women ages 40-59, based on expenditure data from a major US health care insurance plan for 702,154 women in the years 2011-13. The average expenditures for each false-positive mammogram, invasive breast cancer, and ductal carcinoma in situ in the twelve months following diagnosis were $852, $51,837 and $12,369, respectively. This translates to a national cost of $4 billion each year. The costs associated with false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses appear to be much higher than previously documented. Screening has the potential to save lives. However, the economic impact of false-positive mammography results and breast cancer overdiagnoses must be considered in the debate about the appropriate populations for screening. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost of Health Care

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25847639     DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  24 in total

1.  Screening: Don't look now.

Authors:  Emily Sohn
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Breast cancer screening in patients with cancers other than breast.

Authors:  Robin B Leopold; Alexander W Thomas; Kyle F Concannon; Alissa D Correll; Catherine M LaPenta; Stephen M Maurer; Brian L Sprague; Sally D Herschorn; Claire F Verschraegen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Screening Mammography Among Older Women: A Review of United States Guidelines and Potential Harms.

Authors:  Deborah S Mack; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Quantifying predictive capability of electronic health records for the most harmful breast cancer.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Jun Fan; Peggy Peissig; Richard Berg; Ahmad Pahlavan Tafti; Jie Yin; Ming Yuan; David Page; Jennifer Cox; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2018-03-07

5.  Breast Cyst Fluid Analysis Correlations with Speed of Sound Using Transmission Ultrasound.

Authors:  Bilal H Malik; John C Klock
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Bonnie N Joe; Karla Kerlikowske; Heather Greenwood; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Bethany Niell; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Jesus Avila; Leila Kazemi; John Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  The Effect of Treatment Advances on the Mortality Results of Breast Cancer Screening Trials: A Microsimulation Model.

Authors:  Jeanette Birnbaum; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Elan Markowitz; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Screening and Selection: The Case of Mammograms.

Authors:  Liran Einav; Amy Finkelstein; Tamar Oostrom; Abigail Ostriker; Heidi Williams
Journal:  Am Econ Rev       Date:  2020-12

9.  Factors Associated with False Positive Results on Screening Mammography in a Population of Predominantly Hispanic Women.

Authors:  Julia E McGuinness; William Ueng; Meghna S Trivedi; Hae Seung Yi; Raven David; Alejandro Vanegas; Jennifer Vargas; Rossy Sandoval; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions.

Authors:  Minal S Kale; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-08-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.