 |
 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 November 2003 | Volume 139 Issue 10 | Pages 835-842
Purpose: There are few data on the effects of disease biology and competing mortality on the effectiveness of screening women for breast cancer after age 65 years. The authors performed a review to determine the costs and benefits of mammography screening after age 65 years.
Data Sources: Cost-effectiveness articles published between January 1989 and March 2002.
Study Selection: Studies were identified by using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. The authors included research on screening after age 65 years conducted from a societal or government perspective; reviews and analyses of other technologies were excluded.
Data Synthesis: 115 studies were identified and 10 met inclusion criteria. One study modeled age-dependent assumptions of disease biology. No study fully captured the potential harms of screening, including anxiety associated with false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and previous knowledge of cancer or living longer with the consequences of treatment. Studies differed in the specific strategies compared and in analytic approaches. On average, extending biennial screening to age 75 or 80 years was estimated to cost $34 000 to $88 000 (2002 U.S. dollars) per life-year gained, compared with stopping screening at age 65 years. Two studies suggested that it was more cost-effective to target healthy women than those with several competing risks for death.
Conclusions: Current estimates suggest that biennial breast cancer screening after age 65 years reduces mortality at reasonable costs for women without clinically significant comorbid conditions. More data are needed on disease biology and preferences for benefits and harms in older women.
Author and Article Information
From Georgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Cancer Center, Washington, DC; Oregon Health and Science University, Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Oregon; Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania; University of North Carolina, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland; and University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
Disclaimer: The authors are responsible for the contents of this review, including any clinical recommendations. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or National Cancer Institute.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the support and assistance of Kathryn Pyle Krages, AMLS, MA, of the Oregon Health and Science University Evidence-based Practice Center, and Trina McClendon for manuscript preparation.
Grant Support: By contracts 290-97-0018 and 290-97-0011 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and by grants #U01CA88283 and #KO5 CA96940 from the National Cancer Institute (Dr. Mandelblatt). Dr. Saha is supported by a research career development grant from the Health Services Research and Development Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.
Requests for Single Reprints: Jeanne Mandelblatt, MD, MPH, Lombardi Cancer Center, 2233 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 317, Washington, DC 20007; e-mail, mandelbj{at}georgetown.edu.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Mandelblatt: Lombardi Cancer Center, 2233 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 317, Washington, DC 20007.
Dr. Saha: Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Dr. Teutsch: Merck & Co., PO Box 4, WP39-168, West Point, PA 19486-0004.
Dr. Hoerger: Research Triangle Institute, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
Dr. Siu: Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 1 Gustave L. Levey Place, Box 1070, New York, NY 10029.
Dr. Atkins: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, 6th Floor, Rockville, MD 20850.
Dr. Klein: University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood, #69, Rochester, NY 14642.
Dr. Helfand: Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97201. REVIEW
The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography beyond Age 65 Years
A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. B. Russell Preventing Chronic Disease: An Important Investment, But Don't Count On Cost Savings Health Aff., January 1, 2009; 28(1): 42 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. A. Dhalla, T. Kiran, H. E. Golden, A. N. Trivedi, W. Rakowski, and J. Z. Ayanian Effect of cost sharing on screening mammography. N. Engl. J. Med., May 29, 2008; 358(22): 2411 - 2411. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. D. Badgwell, S. H. Giordano, Z. Z. Duan, S. Fang, I. Bedrosian, H. M. Kuerer, S. E. Singletary, K. K. Hunt, G. N. Hortobagyi, and G. Babiera Mammography Before Diagnosis Among Women Age 80 Years and Older With Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., May 20, 2008; 26(15): 2482 - 2488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. A. Williams, K. Lindquist, R. L. Sudore, K. E. Covinsky, and L. C. Walter Screening Mammography in Older Women: Effect of Wealth and Prognosis Arch Intern Med, March 10, 2008; 168(5): 514 - 520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. Trivedi, W. Rakowski, and J. Z. Ayanian Effect of Cost Sharing on Screening Mammography in Medicare Health Plans N. Engl. J. Med., January 24, 2008; 358(4): 375 - 383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. N. Wittink and H. R. Bogner Primary Care Physicians' Assessments of Older Patients' Health and Psychological Status and Recommendation of Mammography J Am Board Fam Med, January 1, 2008; 21(1): 17 - 23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. N.A. Tosteson, N. K. Stout, D. G. Fryback, S. Acharyya, B. A. Herman, L. G. Hannah, E. D. Pisano, and for the DMIST Investigators Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Mammography Breast Cancer Screening Ann Intern Med, January 1, 2008; 148(1): 1 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. T. Brewer, T. Salz, and S. E. Lillie Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms Ann Intern Med, April 3, 2007; 146(7): 502 - 510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Losina, R. P. Walensky, A. Geller, F. C. Beddingfield III, L. L. Wolf, B. A. Gilchrest, and K. A. Freedberg Visual Screening for Malignant Melanoma: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Arch Dermatol, January 1, 2007; 143(1): 21 - 28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Mandelblatt, C. B. Schechter, W. Lawrence, B. Yi, and J. Cullen Chapter 8: The SPECTRUM Population Model of the Impact of Screening and Treatment on U.S. Breast Cancer Trends From 1975 to 2000: Principles and Practice of the Model Methods J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 47 - 55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. G. Hanin, A. Miller, A. V. Zorin, and A. Y. Yakovlev Chapter 10: The University of Rochester Model of Breast Cancer Detection and Survival J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 66 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. K. Stout, M. A. Rosenberg, A. Trentham-Dietz, M. A. Smith, S. M. Robinson, and D. G. Fryback Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst, June 7, 2006; 98(11): 774 - 782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. S. Kirsner, F. Ma, L. Fleming, D. G. Federman, E. Trapido, R. Duncan, and J. D. Wilkinson The effect of medicare health care delivery systems on survival for patients with breast and colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2006; 15(4): 769 - 773. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. W. Bynum, J. B. Braunstein, P. Sharkey, K. Haddad, and A. W. Wu The Influence of Health Status, Age, and Race on Screening Mammography in Elderly Women Arch Intern Med, October 10, 2005; 165(18): 2083 - 2088. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Longo and G. R. Upchurch Jr Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening: Recommendations and Controversies Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, May 1, 2005; 39(3): 213 - 219. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. White, D. L. Miglioretti, B. C. Yankaskas, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, K. Kerlikowske, L. Saba, P. M. Vacek, P. A. Carney, D. S. M. Buist, et al. Biennial Versus Annual Mammography and the Risk of Late-Stage Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, December 15, 2004; 96(24): 1832 - 1839. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. E. Finucane Cost-Effectiveness of Mammography for Older Women Ann Intern Med, May 18, 2004; 140(10): 844 - 844. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. C. Walter, K. Lindquist, and K. E. Covinsky Relationship between Health Status and Use of Screening Mammography and Papanicolaou Smears among Women Older Than 70 Years of Age Ann Intern Med, May 4, 2004; 140(9): 681 - 688. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. G. Welch Right and Wrong Reasons To Be Screened Ann Intern Med, May 4, 2004; 140(9): 754 - 755. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Minerva BMJ, March 13, 2004; 328(7440): E285 - E285. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minerva BMJ, January 3, 2004; 328(7430): 58 - 58. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Article
