ArticleBritish journal of cancer2004
Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions compared to open-breast biopsy.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths.British journal of cancer · 2011Article
- Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening.Epidemiologic reviews · 2011Review
- The impact of healthcare costs in the last year of life and in all life years gained on the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2009Article
- Cost-effective screening for breast cancer worldwide: current state and future directions.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2008Article
- MR-guided breast biopsy and hook wire marking using a low-field (0.23 T) scanner with optical instrument tracking.European radiology · 2007Article
- Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that the introduction of large-core needle biopsy (LCNB) replacing needle-localised breast biopsy (NLBB) for nonpalpable (screen-detected) breast lesions could result in substantial cost savings at the expense of a possible slight increase in breast cancer mortality. The cost-effectiveness of LCNB and NLBB was estimated using a microsimulation model. The sensitivity of LCNB (0.97) and resource use and costs of LCNB and NLBB were derived from a multicentre consecutive cohort study among 973 women who consented in getting LCNB and NLBB, if LCNB was negative. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Replacing NLBB with LCNB would result in approximately six more breast cancer deaths per year (in a target population of 2.1 million women), or in 1000 extra life-years lost from breast cancer (effect over 100 years). The total costs of management of breast cancer (3% discounted) are estimated at pound 4676 million with NLBB; introducing LCNB would save pound 13 million. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of continued NLBB vs LCNB would be pound 12 482 per additional life-year gained (3% discounted); incremental costs range from pound -21 687 (low threshold for breast biopsy) to pound 74 378 (high sensitivity of LCNB).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.