Literature DB >> 25891052

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

Nicolien T van Ravesteyn1, Lisanne van Lier2, Clyde B Schechter3, Donatus U Ekwueme4, Janet Royalty4, Jacqueline W Miller4, Aimee M Near5, Kathleen A Cronin6, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk7, Jeanne S Mandelblatt5, Harry J de Koning7.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides mammograms and diagnostic services for low-income, uninsured women aged 40-64 years. Mammography facilities within the NBCCEDP gradually shifted from plain-film to digital mammography. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of replacing film with digital mammography on health effects (deaths averted, life-years gained [LYG]); costs (for screening and diagnostics); and number of women reached.
METHODS: NBCCEDP 2010 data and data representative of the program's target population were used in two established microsimulation models. Models simulated observed screening behavior including different screening intervals (annual, biennial, irregular) and starting ages (40, 50 years) for white, black, and Hispanic women. Model runs were performed in 2012.
RESULTS: The models predicted 8.0-8.3 LYG per 1,000 film screens for black women, 5.9-7.5 for white women, and 4.0-4.5 for Hispanic women. For all race/ethnicity groups, digital mammography had more LYG than film mammography (2%-4%), but had higher costs (34%-35%). Assuming a fixed budget, 25%-26% fewer women could be served, resulting in 22%-24% fewer LYG if all mammograms were converted to digital. The loss in LYG could be reversed to an 8%-13% increase by only including biennial screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Digital could result in slightly more LYG than film mammography. However, with a fixed budget, fewer women may be served with fewer LYG. Changes in the program, such as only including biennial screening, will increase LYG/screen and could offset the potential decrease in LYG when shifting to digital mammography.
Copyright © 2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25891052      PMCID: PMC4405659          DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.11.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  31 in total

1.  Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Joann G Elmore; Sofie Sebuødegård; Solveig Roth Hoff; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  John T Schousboe; Karla Kerlikowske; Andrew Loh; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Variation in mammographic breast density by race.

Authors:  A Y El-Bastawissi; E White; M T Mandelson; S Taplin
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.797

4.  Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-05-16       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Race-specific impact of natural history, mammography screening, and adjuvant treatment on breast cancer mortality rates in the United States.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Clyde B Schechter; Aimee M Near; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Michael A Stoto; Gerrit Draisma; Harry J de Koning; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Program-specific cost-effectiveness analysis: breast cancer screening policies for a safety-net program.

Authors:  Joy Melnikow; Daniel J Tancredi; Zhuo Yang; Dominique Ritley; Yun Jiang; Christina Slee; Svetlana Popova; Phillip Rylett; Kirsten Knutson; Sherie Smalley
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1996-2005.

Authors:  Lisa C Richardson; Janet Royalty; William Howe; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Vicki B Benard
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Differences in breast cancer stage, treatment, and survival by race and ethnicity.

Authors:  Christopher I Li; Kathleen E Malone; Janet R Daling
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-01-13

10.  Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice.

Authors:  Karminder S Gill; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  6 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

2.  Improved Screening Mammogram Workflow by Maximizing PACS Streamlining Capabilities in an Academic Breast Center.

Authors:  Ramya Pham; Daniel Forsberg; Donna Plecha
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; Sandra J Lee; Sylvia K Plevritis; Clyde B Schechter; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Structure, Function, and Applications of the Georgetown-Einstein (GE) Breast Cancer Simulation Model.

Authors:  Clyde B Schechter; Aimee M Near; Jinani Jayasekera; Young Chandler; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Assessing the Accuracy of Caries Diagnosis in Bitewing Radiographs Using Different Reproduction Media.

Authors:  Sadaf Adibi; Anita Amrollahi; Ali Dehghani Nazhvani; Najmeh Movahhedian
Journal:  J Dent (Shiraz)       Date:  2018-09

Review 6.  Reflecting on 20 years of breast cancer modeling in CISNET: Recommendations for future cancer systems modeling efforts.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christina Chapman; Xuelin Huang; Jinani Jayasekera; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Jennifer M Yeh; Sylvia K Plevritis; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 4.475

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.