Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23303200›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2013

The cost of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population.

Cary P Gross, Jessica B Long, Joseph S Ross, Maysa M Abu-Khalaf, Rong Wang, Brigid K Killelea, Heather T Gold, Anees B Chagpar, Xiaomei Ma

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Return on Investment of a Breast Cancer Screening Program in Tanzania: Opportunity for Patient and Public Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Cary P GrossCancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. cary.gross@yale.edu
Jessica B Long
Joseph S Ross
Maysa M Abu-Khalaf
Rong Wang
Brigid K Killelea
Heather T Gold
Anees B Chagpar
Xiaomei Ma

Funding

Use and Outcomes of Radiation Therapy for Medicare Patients with Common CancersR01CA149045 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI GROSS, CARY P. · 2010 to 2012
$1.5M
Impact of Publicity Reporting Hospital Outcome Measures for Older AdultsK08AG032886 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI ROSS, JOSEPH SOLOMON · 2008 to 2012
$738k
NCI NIH HHS 5R01CA149045NCI NIH HHS N01 PC035136NCI NIH HHS N01 PC035139NCI NIH HHS N01-PC-35136NCI NIH HHS N01-PC-35139NCI NIH HHS N02 PC015105NCI NIH HHS R01 CA149045NIA NIH HHS K08 AG032886PHS HHS U55/CCR921930-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about the cost to Medicare of breast cancer screening or whether regional-level screening expenditures are associated with cancer stage at diagnosis or treatment costs, particularly because newer breast cancer screening technologies, like digital mammography and computer-aided detection (CAD), have diffused into the care of older women.

methodsUsing the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified 137 274 women ages 66 to 100 years who had not had breast cancer and assessed the cost to fee-for-service Medicare of breast cancer screening and workup during 2006 to 2007. For women who developed cancer, we calculated initial treatment cost. We then assessed screening-related cost at the Hospital Referral Region (HRR) level and evaluated the association between regional expenditures and workup test utilization, cancer incidence, and treatment costs.

resultsIn the United States, the annual costs to fee-for-service Medicare for breast cancer screening-related procedures (comprising screening plus workup) and treatment expenditures were $1.08 billion and $1.36 billion, respectively. For women 75 years or older, annual screening-related expenditures exceeded $410 million. Age-standardized screening-related cost per beneficiary varied more than 2-fold across regions (from $42 to $107 per beneficiary); digital screening mammography and CAD accounted for 65% of the difference in screening-related cost between HRRs in the highest and lowest quartiles of cost. Women residing in HRRs with high screening costs were more likely to be diagnosed as having early-stage cancer (incidence rate ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.40-2.26]). There was no significant difference in the cost of initial cancer treatment per beneficiary between the highest and lowest screening cost HRRs ($151 vs $115; P = .20).

conclusionsThe cost to Medicare of breast cancer screening exceeds $1 billion annually in the fee-for-service program. Regional variation is substantial and driven by the use of newer and more expensive technologies; it is unclear whether higher screening expenditures are achieving better breast cancer outcomes.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsFee-for-Service PlansFemaleHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningMedicareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23303200
PMCPMC3638736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.