Literature DB >> 31254388

Quality-of-life effects of screening mammography in Norway.

Per-Henrik Zahl1, Mette Kalager2,3,4, Pål Suhrke5,6, Erik Nord1.   

Abstract

Mammography screening may save women from dying of breast cancer, although it has not been shown to reduce all-cause mortality. Screening also leads to overdiagnosis and many false positive mammograms aggravating women's quality-of-life. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) analyses of mammography screening have so far, calculated life years gained assuming that all prevented breast cancer deaths translate into a reduction in all-cause mortality. We calculated net QALYs in two hypothesized cohorts of 100,000 Norwegian women; one screened biennially from age 50 to 69 years and one not screened. We followed both cohorts to age 85 years. We used EQ-5D and an alternative equity weighted QALY instrument to estimate utility losses. In the screening cohort, we assumed 20% false positive tests during screening, different levels of overdiagnosis (20-75%) and different levels of breast cancer mortality reduction (10-30%). We assumed that reductions in breast cancer mortality only to a limited extent (20, 50 or 80%), resulted in reductions in all-cause mortality. We calculated both undiscounted and discounted (4%) QALYs. Assuming that 50% of the reduction in breast cancer mortality translated to a reduction in all-cause mortality and using estimated levels of benefits and harms in modern screening programs (50-75% overdiagnosis and 10% reduction in breast cancer mortality), undiscounted equity weighted QALY loss varied from 437 to 875 per 100,000 women. Using the levels of benefit and harms as reported in 30-40 years old randomized trials (30% overdiagnosis and 15% reduction in breast cancer mortality), undiscounted equity weighted QALY gain was 535 per 100,000. Net QALY in modern mammography screening in Norway is negative. Results could also be representative for Sweden, Denmark, UK and the US.
© 2019 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Markov modeling; QALY; breast cancer; mammography; mass screening

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31254388     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32539

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  Cancer outcome research - a European challenge Part II: Opportunities and priorities.

Authors:  Mette Kalager; Hans-Olov Adami; Paul W Dickman; Pernilla Lagergren; Karen Steindorf
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 7.449

2.  Breast cancer screening during the Syrian crisis: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Sara Husein; Ibrahem Hanafi; Maram Balouli; Zein Baradi; Yusra Alsheikhah; Dana Abo Samra; Maher Salamoon
Journal:  J Prev Med Hyg       Date:  2021-07-30

3.  The role of philosophy and ethics at the edges of medicine.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2021-11-06       Impact factor: 2.464

4.  Study protocol comparing the ethical, psychological and socio-economic impact of personalised breast cancer screening to that of standard screening in the "My Personal Breast Screening" (MyPeBS) randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Alexandra Roux; Rachel Cholerton; Jonathan Sicsic; Nora Moumjid; David P French; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Corinne Balleyguier; Michal Guindy; Fiona J Gilbert; Jean-Benoit Burrion; Xavier Castells; David Ritchie; Debbie Keatley; Camille Baron; Suzette Delaloge; Sandrine de Montgolfier
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 4.638

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.