Literature DB >> 8357894

Cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening in Australia.

R Carter1, P Glasziou, G van Oortmarssen, H de Koning, C Stevenson, G Salkeld, R Boer.   

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening to supplement the results of the National Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening which identified the mortality benefit as the most sensitive parameter. This appraisal used a different computer model, MISCAN, which models the effects of introducing a national screening program into a previously unscreened population, rather than basing estimates on the assumption of a fully established program. For the 40 to 49 age group a mortality reduction of 8 per cent was assumed, rather than the 30 per cent estimate utilised in the National Evaluation. The revised estimate is based on the two Swedish trials (Malmo and WE). New estimates for treatment costs were also incorporated into the MISCAN model. The cost-effectiveness of the policy recommended in the National Evaluation Report, $11,000 per life year saved with two-yearly screening of women over 40, is estimated by the MISCAN model to be $20,300. These differences arise partly from the difference in mortality effects for the 40 to 49 age group, but also from differences inherent in the steady-state and dynamic population approaches to modelling premature deaths averted. The MISCAN results confirm that screening for women over 50 is more cost-effective than screening women under 50. Screening all women aged 50 to 69 every two to three years is reasonable value for money. For women aged 40 to 49 the mortality benefit and cost-effectiveness is less clear, and it would be prudent to allow screening in this group until further evidence is available.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8357894     DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.1993.tb00103.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust J Public Health        ISSN: 1035-7319


  11 in total

1.  Should we genetically test everyone for haemochromatosis?

Authors:  K Allen; R Williamson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 2.  Cancer screening in renal transplant recipients: what is the evidence?

Authors:  Germaine Wong; Jeremy R Chapman; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.237

Review 3.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Mammographic screening in older women. Is it worthwhile?

Authors:  J A van Dijck; M J Broeders; A L Verbeek
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.923

5.  Quantitative estimates of the impact of sensitivity and specificity in mammographic screening in Germany.

Authors:  P G Warmerdam; H J de Koning; R Boer; P M Beemsterboer; M L Dierks; E Swart; B P Robra
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Using Simulation Modeling to Inform Strategies to Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality in Black Women in the District of Columbia.

Authors:  Aimee M Near; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Clyde B Schechter; Michael A Stoto
Journal:  Epidemiol Res Int       Date:  2012-04-26

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography and clinical breast examination strategies: a comparison with current guidelines.

Authors:  Charlotte Hsieh Ahern; Yu Shen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography in Vietnamese women.

Authors:  Chi Phuong Nguyen; Eddy M M Adang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography; a systematic review.

Authors:  Arash Rashidian; Eshagh Barfar; Hamed Hosseini; Shirin Nosratnejad; Esmat Barooti
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 1.429

10.  Changes in use of breast-conserving therapy in years 1978-2000.

Authors:  H J de Koning; J A van Dongen; P J van der Maas
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.