Literature DB >> 33556275

Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Ya-Chen Tina Shih1, Wenli Dong1, Ying Xu1, Ruth Etzioni2, Yu Shen1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast density classification is largely determined by mammography, making the timing of the first screening mammogram clinically important.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening strategies that are stratified by breast density.
DESIGN: Microsimulation model to generate the natural history of breast cancer for women with and those without dense breasts and assessment of the cost-effectiveness of strategies tailored to breast density and nontailored strategies. DATA SOURCES: Model parameters from the literature; statistical modeling; and analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. TARGET POPULATION: Women aged 40 years or older. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: No screening; biennial or triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years; annual mammography from age 50 to 75 years for women with dense breasts at age 50 years and biennial or triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years for those without dense breasts at age 50 years; and annual mammography at age 40 to 75 years for women with dense breasts at age 40 years and biennial or triennial mammography at age 50 to 75 years for those without dense breasts at age 40 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Baseline screening at age 40 years followed by annual screening at age 40 to 75 years for women with dense breasts and biennial screening at age 50 to 75 years for women without dense breasts was effective and cost-effective, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36 200 per QALY versus the biennial strategy at age 50 to 75 years. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability that the density-stratified strategy at age 40 years was optimal was 56% compared with 6 other strategies. LIMITATION: Findings may not be generalizable outside the United States.
CONCLUSION: The study findings advocate for breast density-stratified screening with baseline mammography at age 40 years. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33556275      PMCID: PMC8171124          DOI: 10.7326/M20-2912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  42 in total

Review 1.  One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates.

Authors:  T O Tengs; A Wallace
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  A model-based comparison of breast cancer screening strategies: mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Giovanni Parmigiani
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  New Federal Requirements to Inform Patients About Breast Density: Will They Help Patients?

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Lydia E Pace
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Philip C Prorok; A James O'Malley; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Time to Consider a Personalized Approach to Incorporate Tomosynthesis Into Routine Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Yu Shen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Natasha K Stout; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Scott D Ramsey; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Helen Linardou; Fotios Siannis; George Fountzilas; Samuel Murray
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2008-06

8.  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

9.  Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Breast cancer risk prediction and individualised screening based on common genetic variation and breast density measurement.

Authors:  Hatef Darabi; Kamila Czene; Wanting Zhao; Jianjun Liu; Per Hall; Keith Humphreys
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.