Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model
The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of o...
Saved in:
| Published in: | JAMA oncology Vol. 4; no. 11; p. 1504 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
01.11.2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 2374-2445, 2374-2445 |
| Online Access: | Get more information |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources.
To assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening.
A life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective.
The modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017.
Overdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year.
The risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively.
Not offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources.
To assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening.
A life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective.
The modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017.
Overdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year.
The risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively.
Not offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening. The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources.ImportanceThe age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources.To assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening.ObjectiveTo assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening.A life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective.Design, Setting, and PopulationA life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective.The modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017.InterventionsThe modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017.Overdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOverdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year.The risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively.ResultsThe risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively.Not offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening.Conclusions and RelevanceNot offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening. |
| Author | Morris, Steve Pharoah, Paul D P Pashayan, Nora Gilbert, Fiona J |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Nora surname: Pashayan fullname: Pashayan, Nora organization: Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, England – sequence: 2 givenname: Steve surname: Morris fullname: Morris, Steve organization: Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, England – sequence: 3 givenname: Fiona J surname: Gilbert fullname: Gilbert, Fiona J organization: Department of Radiology, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England – sequence: 4 givenname: Paul D P surname: Pharoah fullname: Pharoah, Paul D P organization: Departments of Oncology and Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29978189$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkE1LAzEYhIMottb-AkFy9JKaZLObjbe2-AUVoeq5ZJM3Et1NapIK_nsLKniaGXhmDnOCDkMMgNAZozNGKbt804OOwcR-xilrZ0xRdoDGvJKCcCHqw39-hKY5v9F9S0jaCH6MRlwp2bJWjVFcxlwIOAem-E8IkDPWweLF3jpfSInkTqcBr3XxEUeH1z6_k6eS9tl5sPjJJIDgwyt2MeFFAp0LXupgIF3hOV55B-RZdz3gh2ihP0VHTvcZpr86QS8318_LO7J6vL1fzldEV1IVUtVdbUBwY2SnnGk7XlvVVsBUR2tVS6uhrZvGaaraVnEtha2YVcAqbZitOj5BFz-72xQ_dpDLZvDZQN_rAHGXN5w2jZC15GKPnv-iu24Au9kmP-j0tfk7iX8Dg3Ztgw |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1200_JCO_23_00295 crossref_primary_10_1158_1940_6207_CAPR_20_0437 crossref_primary_10_1111_hex_13637 crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm11060511 crossref_primary_10_1016_S0140_6736_24_01689_1 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41571_020_0388_9 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2024_1375533 crossref_primary_10_1136_medethics_2020_106146 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bpobgyn_2019_11_005 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40142_019_00168_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_diii_2020_07_004 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijms25021231 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41431_018_0257_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_l5558 crossref_primary_10_1177_0969141319883662 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10549_020_05806_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_020_07158_9 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41431_024_01729_1 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_38886_0 crossref_primary_10_1111_hex_13522 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_024_12847_w crossref_primary_10_1016_j_breast_2022_01_015 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41416_025_03117_y crossref_primary_10_1007_s10552_023_01739_2 crossref_primary_10_1093_nop_npac017 crossref_primary_10_1093_ije_dyab036 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_021_06396_2 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41416_023_02250_w crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clbc_2022_05_009 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41416_021_01550_3 crossref_primary_10_1111_bjd_17089 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2020_37657 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_breast_2025_104566 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2022_41441 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers14235801 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_socscimed_2019_03_028 crossref_primary_10_1002_cncr_35183 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_022_10134_0 crossref_primary_10_1136_jmg_2024_109948 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers14174218 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_023_09447_y crossref_primary_10_1002_cam4_4226 crossref_primary_10_1111_1753_6405_12972 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_061211 crossref_primary_10_1136_jmedgenet_2019_106763 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_15598 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_15752 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13058_020_01260_3 crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm11060540 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyt_2023_1130417 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers13184568 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12609_019_00320_8 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_020_07464_2 crossref_primary_10_3390_genes14030732 crossref_primary_10_1093_jnci_djz113 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_breast_2024_103724 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers17071056 crossref_primary_10_1111_hex_13267 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers13164150 crossref_primary_10_1177_0962280220929039 crossref_primary_10_1093_jnci_djaa218 crossref_primary_10_1016_S2468_2667_24_00278_0 crossref_primary_10_1093_hmg_ddz187 crossref_primary_10_1093_bjd_ljad431 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_055398 crossref_primary_10_1093_bjd_ljad275 crossref_primary_10_1002_ijc_33593 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIR_0000000000001077 crossref_primary_10_5694_mja2_51216 crossref_primary_10_7326_M20_2912 crossref_primary_10_1111_jan_17079 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0265965 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gim_2025_101453 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13058_024_01947_x crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0265209 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10549_022_06721_1 crossref_primary_10_3322_caac_21660 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers17050810 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41467_020_17680_w crossref_primary_10_1093_jnci_djaa127 crossref_primary_10_32604_oncologie_2022_027640 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_15535 crossref_primary_10_1002_ijc_33126 crossref_primary_10_15388_Amed_2022_29_1_18 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_arr_2022_101803 crossref_primary_10_1158_1940_6207_CAPR_19_0521 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40258_024_00887_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_amepre_2022_04_014 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41591_024_03098_0 crossref_primary_10_2196_47851 crossref_primary_10_1002_ijc_35265 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers13225813 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pmed_1002998 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijms22179149 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejca_2019_10_012 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejca_2019_10_011 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_lanwpc_2024_101012 crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm11020095 crossref_primary_10_1093_jnci_djad227 crossref_primary_10_1177_17455057231160348 crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm11080736 crossref_primary_10_1177_0272989X211050918 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12877_024_05044_8 crossref_primary_10_1590_0034_7167_2021_0050 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_022_09613_1 crossref_primary_10_1136_jmedgenet_2020_107399 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0321545 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_2022_071707 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13073_021_00911_0 crossref_primary_10_1002_jgc4_1347 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clbc_2025_08_021 crossref_primary_10_1093_jncics_pkab060 crossref_primary_10_1177_0969141318813387 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jacr_2019_05_005 crossref_primary_10_1089_tmj_2018_0328 crossref_primary_10_1177_17455065211009746 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12916_025_04048_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00439_019_01984_z crossref_primary_10_1002_1878_0261_12763 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41571_018_0093_0 crossref_primary_10_1002_cncr_33499 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cgh_2023_07_018 crossref_primary_10_1093_jncics_pkz086 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10198_021_01338_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejca_2023_03_023 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers16112116 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40258_025_00949_w crossref_primary_10_1186_s12919_024_00306_0 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2024_089428 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_crad_2021_02_013 crossref_primary_10_1111_hex_13175 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyt_2022_963602 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_020_08974_1 crossref_primary_10_1177_11782234231205700 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_acra_2018_10_014 crossref_primary_10_1177_0272989X241254828 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41436_020_0884_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_S0140_6736_19_31275_9 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41467_020_20496_3 crossref_primary_10_1093_bjd_ljae296 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_019_45967_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40271_025_00747_5 crossref_primary_10_1093_eurpub_ckac047 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41416_020_0938_z crossref_primary_10_1038_s41746_023_00967_9 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11845_022_03187_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gim_2022_04_020 crossref_primary_10_1093_jbi_wbac066 crossref_primary_10_1177_0962280220930055 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0297048 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40274_018_5098_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_022_09698_8 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40142_019_00162_x crossref_primary_10_1200_EDBK_238891 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2024_1377173 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_022_09425_3 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2024_093936 crossref_primary_10_1177_0141076820910317 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers16183189 crossref_primary_10_1111_cts_70323 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_breast_2023_103611 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0218188 crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_9605439 crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm13071027 crossref_primary_10_1093_hmg_ddaa136 crossref_primary_10_1093_jnci_djae335 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_crad_2023_03_006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_acra_2023_08_042 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_canep_2024_102701 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinimag_2019_01_002 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euf_2019_09_002 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41591_022_01746_x crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers13133360 crossref_primary_10_3390_jpm11090916 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0226352 crossref_primary_10_1158_1940_6207_CAPR_20_0002 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41698_022_00280_w crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_024_12083_2 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_n2049 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_020_06745_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gim_2025_101414 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1901 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 2374-2445 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 29978189 |
| Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Cancer Research UK grantid: 10119 – fundername: Cancer Research UK grantid: 26884 – fundername: Cancer Research UK grantid: C490/A16561 – fundername: Cancer Research UK grantid: 16561 – fundername: Cancer Research UK grantid: A16561 |
| GroupedDBID | 0R~ 53G ABBLC ABJNI ABPMR ACGFS ADBBV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMJDE ANMPU BRYMA C45 CGR CUY CVF EBS ECM EIF EJD H13 NPM OGEVE OVD RAJ TEORI 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-a379t-35b5ce42cc7b9fc8b25d983e19b05957dae8566fa098892a74d31d9e13ac1d3b2 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 214 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000449559500009&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 2374-2445 |
| IngestDate | Thu Oct 02 07:36:37 EDT 2025 Sat May 31 02:09:02 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 11 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a379t-35b5ce42cc7b9fc8b25d983e19b05957dae8566fa098892a74d31d9e13ac1d3b2 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6230256 |
| PMID | 29978189 |
| PQID | 2066475724 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2066475724 pubmed_primary_29978189 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-11-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-11-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 11 year: 2018 text: 2018-11-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | JAMA oncology |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | JAMA Oncol |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| References | 29980526 - BMJ. 2018 Jul 6;362:k3009. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3009. 30653221 - JAMA Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;5(3):428. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6501. 35050316 - JAMA Oncol. 2022 Mar 1;8(3):484. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.7316. 29978191 - JAMA Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;4(11):1484-1485. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1940. 35050325 - JAMA Oncol. 2022 Mar 1;8(3):483-484. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.7311. 30449245 - J Med Screen. 2019 Jun;26(2):57-58. doi: 10.1177/0969141318813387. 30653219 - JAMA Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;5(3):428-429. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6504. 30218030 - Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018 Nov;15(11):661-662. doi: 10.1038/s41571-018-0093-0. |
| References_xml | – reference: 29978191 - JAMA Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;4(11):1484-1485. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1940. – reference: 35050325 - JAMA Oncol. 2022 Mar 1;8(3):483-484. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.7311. – reference: 30653219 - JAMA Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;5(3):428-429. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6504. – reference: 35050316 - JAMA Oncol. 2022 Mar 1;8(3):484. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.7316. – reference: 30218030 - Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018 Nov;15(11):661-662. doi: 10.1038/s41571-018-0093-0. – reference: 29980526 - BMJ. 2018 Jul 6;362:k3009. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3009. – reference: 30449245 - J Med Screen. 2019 Jun;26(2):57-58. doi: 10.1177/0969141318813387. – reference: 30653221 - JAMA Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;5(3):428. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.6501. |
| SSID | ssj0001470642 |
| Score | 2.55392 |
| Snippet | The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 1504 |
| SubjectTerms | Aged Breast Neoplasms - economics Cost-Benefit Analysis - economics Early Detection of Cancer - methods Female Humans Middle Aged Risk Assessment |
| Title | Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29978189 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2066475724 |
| Volume | 4 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000449559500009&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3dS8MwEA9-Ib74_TG_iOBrdE3bJfFF3FD24MaYE_ZWkjSForZzrf793rWVgSAIvpS-NCl3l7sfd5f7EXIZqhAgm-HMhb5hgbGSGY9rhtO-fSwmxtpUZBNiOJTTqRo1Cbeiaav89omVo45ziznyaxw7HghYOLidvTNkjcLqakOhsUxWfYAyaNViKhc5lkAgvq745UTAIJKFPwYP5RmIGxu85BVGxt9hZhVuHrb--6PbZLMBmvSutowdsuSyXbI-aErpeyTv5UXJ6naOxuNRncW0C69JWrIyZ309f6NjVB3NEzpOixdWDbNNE8Ct9Mliyw5EPgq4l3axub2kPTSi-Q29o49p4tgEL2ZR5Ft73SfPD_eTXp817AtM-0KVzA9NaF3ArRVGJVYaHsagP-cp00YNx9pJwIKJbispFdciiH0vVs7ztfVi3_ADspLlmTsilHdEx0ppQ0BjgWe4UdxZIQCMwg6Gqxa5-BZlBNaNJQudufyjiBbCbJHDWh_RrB7DEUEgFQA31PEfvj4hG6jk-hLhKVlN4Gy7M7JmP8u0mJ9XZgPP4WjwBR_8y6E |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-effectiveness+and+Benefit-to-Harm+Ratio+of+Risk-Stratified+Screening+for+Breast+Cancer%3A+A+Life-Table+Model&rft.jtitle=JAMA+oncology&rft.au=Pashayan%2C+Nora&rft.au=Morris%2C+Steve&rft.au=Gilbert%2C+Fiona+J&rft.au=Pharoah%2C+Paul+D+P&rft.date=2018-11-01&rft.eissn=2374-2445&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1504&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001%2Fjamaoncol.2018.1901&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29978189&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F29978189&rft.externalDocID=29978189 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2374-2445&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2374-2445&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2374-2445&client=summon |