Article

Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status.

Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 07/2005; 20(6):487-96.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Optimal ages of breast cancer screening cessation remain uncertain.
To evaluate screening policies based on age and quartiles of life expectancy (LE).
We used a stochastic model with proxies of age-dependent biology to evaluate the incremental U.S. societal costs and benefits of biennial screening from age 50 until age 70, 79, or lifetime.
Discounted incremental costs per life years saved (LYS).
Lifetime screening is expensive (151,434 dollars per LYS) if women have treatment and survival comparable to clinical trials (idealized); stopping at age 79 costs 82,063 dollars per LYS. This latter result corresponds to costs associated with an LE of 9.5 years at age 79, a value expected for 75% of 79-year-olds, about 50% of 80-year-olds, and 25% of 85-year-olds. Using actual treatment and survival patterns, screening benefits are greater, and lifetime screening of all women might be considered (114,905 dollars per LYS), especially for women in the top 25% of LE for their age (50,643 dollars per LYS, life expectancy of approximately 7 years at age 90).
If all women receive idealized treatment, the benefits of mammography beyond age 79 are too low relative to their costs to justify continued screening. However, if treatment is not ideal, extending screening beyond age 79 could be considered, especially for women in the top 25% of life expectancy for their age.

Full-text

Available from: Robin Yabroff, Jun 07, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
98 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) is the largest cancer screening program for low-income women in the United States. This study updates previous estimates of the costs of delivering preventive cancer screening services in the NBCCEDP. METHODS: We developed a standardized web-based cost-assessment tool to collect annual activity-based cost data on screening for breast and cervical cancer in the NBCCEDP. Data were collected from 63 of the 66 programs that received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the 2006/2007 fiscal year. We used these data to calculate costs of delivering preventive public health services in the program. RESULTS: We estimated the total cost of all NBCCEDP services to be $296 (standard deviation [SD], $123) per woman served (including the estimated value of in-kind donations, which constituted approximately 15% of this total estimated cost). The estimated cost of screening and diagnostic services was $145 (SD, $38) per women served, which represented 57.7% of the total cost excluding the value of in-kind donations. Including the value of in-kind donations, the weighted mean cost of screening a woman for breast cancer was $110 with an office visit and $88 without, the weighted mean cost of a diagnostic procedure was $401, and the weighted mean cost per breast cancer detected was $35,480. For cervical cancer, the corresponding cost estimates were $61, $21, $415, and $18,995, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These NBCCEDP cost estimates may help policy makers in planning and implementing future costs for various potential changes to the program. (C) 2014 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 08/2014; 120 Suppl 16(16):2604-11. DOI:10.1002/cncr.28816 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Harms and benefits of cancer screening depend on age and comorbid conditions, but reliable estimates are lacking. Objective: To estimate the harms and benefits of cancer screening by age and comorbid conditions to inform decisions about screening cessation. Design: Collaborative modeling with 7 cancer simulation models and common data on average and comorbid condition level-specific life expectancy. Setting: U. S. population. Patients: U. S. cohorts aged 66 to 90 years in 2010 with average health or 1 of 4 comorbid condition levels: none, mild, moderate, or severe. Intervention: Mammography, prostate-specific antigen testing, or fecal immunochemical testing. Measurements: Lifetime cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained (benefits); false-positive test results and overdiagnosed cancer cases (harms). For each comorbid condition level, the age at which harms and benefits of screening were similar to that for persons with average health having screening at age 74 years. Results: Screening 1000 women with average life expectancy at age 74 years for breast cancer resulted in 79 to 96 (range across models) false-positive results, 0.5 to 0.8 overdiagnosed cancer cases, and 0.7 to 0.9 prevented cancer deaths. Although absolute numbers of harms and benefits differed across cancer sites, the ages at which to cease screening were consistent across models and cancer sites. For persons with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbid conditions, screening until ages 76, 74, 72, and 66 years, respectively, resulted in harms and benefits similar to average-health persons. Limitation: Comorbid conditions influenced only life expectancy. Conclusion: Comorbid conditions are an important determinant of harms and benefits of screening. Estimates of screening benefits and harms by comorbid condition can inform discussions between providers and patients about personalizing screening cessation decisions.
    Annals of internal medicine 07/2014; 161(2):104-12. DOI:10.7326/M13-2867 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Guidelines recommend individualizing screening mammography decisions for women aged 75 years and older. However, little pragmatic guidance is available to help counsel patients. To provide an evidence-based approach for individualizing decision-making about screening mammography in older women. We searched PubMed for English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals published from January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2014, to identify risk factors for late-life breast cancer in women aged 65 years and older and to quantify the benefits and harms of screening mammography for women aged 75 years and older. Age is the major risk factor for developing and dying from breast cancer. Breast cancer risk factors that reflect hormonal exposures in the distant past, such as age at first birth or age at menarche, are less predictive of late-life breast cancer than factors indicating recent hormonal exposures such as high bone mass or obesity. Randomized trials of the benefits of screening mammography did not include women older than 74 years. Thus it is not known if screening mammography benefits older women. Observational studies favor extending screening mammography to older women who have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. Modeling studies estimate 2 fewer breast cancer deaths/1000 women who in their 70s continue biennial screening for 10 years instead of stopping screening at age 69. Potential harms of continued screening over 10 years include false-positive mammograms in approximately 200/1000 women screened and overdiagnosis (ie, finding breast cancer that would not have clinically surfaced otherwise) in approximately 13/1000 women screened. Providing information about life expectancy along with potential benefits and harms of screening may help older women's decision-making about screening mammography. For women with less than a 10-year life expectancy, recommendations to stop screening mammography should emphasize increased potential harms from screening and highlight health promotion measures likely to be beneficial over the short term. For women with a life expectancy of more than 10 years, deciding whether potential benefits of screening outweigh harms becomes a value judgment for patients, requiring a realistic understanding of screening outcomes.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 04/2014; 311(13):1336-47. DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.2834 · 30.39 Impact Factor