K K Lindfors1, C J Rosenquist. 1. Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento 95817, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the cost-effectiveness of different mammographic screening strategies. DESIGN: A computer simulation model was developed to compare mammographic screening with observation without screening. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as marginal cost per year of life saved (MCYLS) and was calculated for the following mammographic screening strategies: (1) annual for ages 40 to 79 years; (2) annual for ages 50 to 79 years; (3) biennial for ages 50 to 79 years; (4) annual for ages 40 to 49 years with biennial for ages 50 to 79 years; (5) annual for ages 40 to 64 years with biennial for ages 65 to 79 years; (6) biennial for ages 40 to 49 years with annual for ages 50 to 79 years; and (7) annual for high-risk and biennial for normal-risk women aged 40 to 49 years with annual for ages 50 to 79 years. DATA SOURCES: The probability and cost of all outcomes were established from previously published data or community experience. RESULTS: The most cost-effective screening strategy is biennial mammography for women aged 50 to 79 years, with an MCYLS of $16,000. Adding annual mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years increases the MCYLS to $20,200, but is more cost-effective than other tested protocols that included women in their 40s; annual mammography for ages 40 to 49 years with biennial for ages 50 to 79 years is also more cost-effective than annual mammography for ages 50 to 79 years. CONCLUSION: Screening programs that include women in their 40s can be as cost-effective as some that exclude such women. Choice of a screening strategy depends on financial resources and desired effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the cost-effectiveness of different mammographic screening strategies. DESIGN: A computer simulation model was developed to compare mammographic screening with observation without screening. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as marginal cost per year of life saved (MCYLS) and was calculated for the following mammographic screening strategies: (1) annual for ages 40 to 79 years; (2) annual for ages 50 to 79 years; (3) biennial for ages 50 to 79 years; (4) annual for ages 40 to 49 years with biennial for ages 50 to 79 years; (5) annual for ages 40 to 64 years with biennial for ages 65 to 79 years; (6) biennial for ages 40 to 49 years with annual for ages 50 to 79 years; and (7) annual for high-risk and biennial for normal-risk women aged 40 to 49 years with annual for ages 50 to 79 years. DATA SOURCES: The probability and cost of all outcomes were established from previously published data or community experience. RESULTS: The most cost-effective screening strategy is biennial mammography for women aged 50 to 79 years, with an MCYLS of $16,000. Adding annual mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years increases the MCYLS to $20,200, but is more cost-effective than other tested protocols that included women in their 40s; annual mammography for ages 40 to 49 years with biennial for ages 50 to 79 years is also more cost-effective than annual mammography for ages 50 to 79 years. CONCLUSION: Screening programs that include women in their 40s can be as cost-effective as some that exclude such women. Choice of a screening strategy depends on financial resources and desired effectiveness.
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Jean P O'Malley; Andrea Gough; David I Buckley; James Wallace; Lyle J Fagnan; Cynthia Morris; Motomi Mori; John D Heintzman; David Lieberman Journal: Prev Med Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Julie A Margenthaler; Emad Allam; Ling Chen; Katherine S Virgo; Udayan Mayur Kulkarni; Anand P Patel; Frank E Johnson Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Brigid K Killelea; Jessica B Long; Anees B Chagpar; Xiaomei Ma; Rong Wang; Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 13.506