Cost-Effectiveness of Tomosynthesis in Annual Screening Mammography

2016 ◽  
Vol 207 (5) ◽  
pp. 1152-1155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek B. Kalra ◽  
Xiao Wu ◽  
Brian M. Haas ◽  
Howard P. Forman ◽  
Liane E. Philpotts
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Mammography ◽  
Annual Screening

The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography beyond Age 65 Years

2003 ◽  
Vol 139 (10) ◽  
pp. 835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne Mandelblatt ◽  
Somnath Saha ◽  
Steven Teutsch ◽  
Tom Hoerger ◽  
Albert L. Siu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Mammography ◽  
The Cost

Continuation of Annual Screening Mammography and Breast Cancer Mortality in Women Older Than 70 Years

2020 ◽  
Vol 172 (6) ◽  
pp. 381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xabier García-Albéniz ◽  
Miguel A. Hernán ◽  
Roger W. Logan ◽  
Mary Price ◽  
Katrina Armstrong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Breast Cancer Mortality ◽  
Screening Mammography ◽  
Annual Screening

Simulating the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan in Canada.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6550-6550
Author(s):  
John R. Goffin ◽  
William M Flanagan ◽  
Anthony Miller ◽  
Fei Fei Liu ◽  
Sonya Cressman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Ct Screening ◽  
Low Dose Ct ◽  
Eligible Population ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Annual Screening

6550 Background: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose CT screening diminishes the risk of death among smokers. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken in the context of the Canadian publically funded healthcare system. Methods: Microsimulation of CT screening was undertaken using the Cancer Risk Management Model, which incorporates demographic data, cancer risk factors, cancer registry data, diagnostic and treatment algorithms and health utilities. Simulations were performed at the individual level for a cohort incepted during the period 2012-2032. The criteria for the screen-eligible population, CT scan test characteristics, and screened cohort outcomes were derived from NLST and Canadian data. The baseline screening scenario was annual CT screening for ≥30 pack-year smokers, age 55 to 74. Simulation assumed 60% of the eligible population participates by 10 years, 70% adhere to the screening regimen, and smoking cessation rates are unchanged. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs and life-years lived were discounted at 3% annually. Results: Compared to no screening, annual screening results in incremental system costs of $2.97 billion (Cdn), 149,000 life-years saved (LYS) or 55,000 quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYS), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $19,900/LYS, and $53,700/QALYS. With participation rates from 40% to 80%, ICER /QALYS remained within the range of $53,700 to $58,200. Increases in screening adherence from 50% through 90% increased the ICER /QALY from $50,400 to $58,800. Higher rates of smoking cessation led to improvements in ICER /QALY (150% of background cessation rate of 3.2-5.3%, $47,000; 200%, $41,500; 300%, $32,900). A system of biennial screening had a net cost of $1.81 billion, resulting in an ICER of $19,600 /LYS, and $54,800 /QALYS. Conclusions: Screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT scans could be cost-effective, but requires substantial system costs. The smoking cessation rate greatly impacts the ICER and a cessation program should be considered if screening is implemented. Compared to annual screening, biennial screening costs less and produces a similar ICER. Further analyses will be detailed.

scholarly journals Reply to Opportunity cost of annual screening mammography

Cancer ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 124 (6) ◽  
pp. 1298-1299
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Kagan Arleo ◽  
R. Edward Hendrick ◽  
Mark A. Helvie ◽  
Edward A. Sickles
Keyword(s):  
Opportunity Cost ◽  
Screening Mammography ◽  
Annual Screening

scholarly journals THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF DEPRESSION SCREENING FOR THE GENERAL ADULT POPULATION

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melike Yildirim ◽  
Bradley Gaynes ◽  
Pinar Keskinocak ◽  
Brian Pence ◽  
Julie L Swann
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Routine Screening ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Male Population ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Annual Screening ◽  
The Cost

Objective. Screening has an essential role in preventive medicine. Ideally, screening tools detect patients early enough to manage the disease and reduce symptoms. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of routine screening schedules. Methods. We used a discrete-time nonstationary Markov model to simulate the progression of depression. We adopted annual transition probabilities, which were dependent on patient histories, such as the number of previous episodes, treatment status, and time spent without treatment state based on the available data. We used Monte Carlo techniques to simulate the stochastic model for 20 years or during the lifetime of individuals. Baseline and screening scenario models with screening frequencies of annual, 2-year, and 5-year were compared based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Results. In the general population, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared to the baseline. However, male and female populations differed based on cost over quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Females had lower ICERs, and annual screening had the highest ICER for females, with 11,134 $/QALY gained. In contrast, males had around three times higher ICER, with annual screening costs of 34,065$/QALY gained. Conclusions. Considering the high lifetime prevalence and recurrence rates of depression, detection and prevention efforts can be one critical cornerstone to support required care. Our analysis combined the expected benefits and costs of screening and assessed the effectiveness of screening scenarios. We conclude that routine screening is cost-effective for all age groups of females and young, middle-aged males. Male population results are sensitive to the higher costs of screening.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of population-based type 2 diabetes mellitus screening at different healthcare settings in Vietnam

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0261231
Author(s):  
Phung Lam Toi ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Montarat Thavorncharoensap ◽  
Varalak Srinonprasert ◽  
Thunyarat Anothaisintawee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Annual Screening

Introduction Few economic evaluations have assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in different healthcare settings. This study aims to evaluate the value for money of various T2DM screening strategies in Vietnam. Methods A decision analytical model was constructed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of T2DM screening in different health care settings, including (1) screening at commune health station (CHS) and (2) screening at district health center (DHC), with no screening as the current practice. We further explored the costs and QALYs of different initial screening ages and different screening intervals. Cost and utility data were obtained by primary data collection in Vietnam. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated from societal and payer perspectives, while uncertainty analysis was performed to explore parameter uncertainties. Results Annual T2DM screening at either CHS or DHC was cost-effective in Vietnam, from both societal and payer perspectives. Annual screening at CHS was found as the best screening strategy in terms of value for money. From a societal perspective, annual screening at CHS from initial age of 40 years was associated with 0.40 QALYs gained while saving US$ 186.21. Meanwhile, one-off screening was not cost-effective when screening for people younger than 35 years old at both CHS and DHC. Conclusions T2DM screening should be included in the Vietnamese health benefits package, and annual screening at either CHS or DHC is recommended.

National survey of breast cancer screening in rural America.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey M. Peppercorn ◽  
Kevin Houck ◽  
Adane Fekadu Wogu ◽  
Victor Villagra ◽  
Gary H. Lyman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Rural Women ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
College Education ◽  
Screening Mammography ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Annual Screening

13 Background: Screening mammography leads to early detection of breast cancer and improved survival. We conducted a survey of predominantly rural U.S. women who receive health insurance through the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) to evaluate the prevalence of annual and biennial screening and to identify potential disparities and barriers to breast cancer screening. Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of women between ages 40 and 65 who are insured by the NRECA regarding their utilization of mammography screening and barriers to screening. A study specific survey was mailed to 2,000 randomly selected eligible women without prior diagnosis of breast cancer. We assessed demographics and receipt of mammography within past 12 months (all women) and number of screening mammograms within the past 4 years (among women age 44 and older) to identify consistent annual screening and biennial screening patterns. Results: 1,204 women responded to the survey (response rate 60.2%). 74% live in rural areas, 18% suburban, 8% urban. 73% report less than 4 years college education and 19% have family incomes < $50,000/year. Overall, 72% reported screening mammography within 12 months, 59% reported consistent annual screening and 84% reported at least biennial screening. Rural women were less likely to undergo consistent annual (56% vs. 66%, p = 0.003) or biennial screening (82% vs. 89%, p = 0.01) compared to women in non-rural areas. Women under 50 were less likely to report screening within 12 months (67% vs. 77%, p = 0.0002), consistent annual (49% vs. 63%, p < 0.0001) or biennial screening (79% vs. 86%, p = 0.002). Significantly more rural women cited cost and distance as barriers, while busy schedule, fear of diagnosis, and fear of discomfort were important barriers among all demographic groups. Fear of the test was a greater barrier among younger vs. older women (p < 0.02). In univariate analysis; household income did not correlate with screening, and education was only a factor among younger women. Conclusions: A substantial percentage of rural U.S. women fail to undergo screening mammography. Potentially modifiable barriers include out of pocket expenses, convenience of screening, and fear of diagnosis and the test itself.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document