Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27066193›Full record

ArticleAmerican health & drug benefits2016

Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service.

Helen Blumen, Kathryn Fitch, Vincent Polkus

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American health & drug benefits, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04057391 (Understanding Patient Experience and Preferences for the QT Scanner Compared to Mammography), which is not on this map. Cited by 146 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
79.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT04057391 suspendednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Understanding Patient Experience and Preferences for the QT Scanner Compared to Mammography

TypeobservationalSponsorQT Ultrasound LLCRan2019 to 2022Enrolled20ConditionsBreast Cancer ScreeningArmsQT Scanner
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

146 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 262 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Surveillance mammography in older women-should we press on?Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Helen BlumenPrincipal and Healthcare Consultant, Milliman, Inc, New York, NY.
Kathryn FitchPrincipal and Healthcare Consultant, Milliman, Inc, New York, NY.
Vincent PolkusDirector, Health Economics & Reimbursement, General Electric Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI.
Milliman (United States) · USGeneral Electric (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnosis of breast cancer at early stages is associated with better clinical and survival outcomes. How the costs of care vary depending on the stage at which breast cancer was diagnosed has not been thoroughly examined.

objectiveTo quantify the stage-dependent average per capita cost of breast cancer treatment for a commercially insured population of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

methodsThis retrospective analysis of claims data was based on a population selected from the Truven Healthcare MarketScan commercial claims database. The study comprised women aged 18 to 64 years with breast cancer who had ≥2 claims in 2010 that were ≥30 days apart and included an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis code for breast cancer (174.xx, 233.0) in any position of the claim. Two years of postdiagnosis claims data were analyzed by stage at diagnosis (ie, 0, I/II, III, and IV).

resultsIn total, 8360 women met the criteria for study inclusion (stage 0, N = 2300; stage I/II, N = 4425; stage III, N = 1134; and stage IV, N = 501). The costs were higher for patients whose cancer was more advanced at diagnosis, for all cumulative 6-month periods (months 0-6, 0-12, 0-18, and 0-24). The average costs per patient allowed by the insurance company in the year after diagnosis were $60,637, $82,121, $129,387, and $134,682 for disease stage 0, I/II, III, and IV, respectively. The average costs allowed per patient in the 24 months after the index diagnosis were $71,909, $97,066, $159,442, and $182,655 for disease stage 0, I/II, III, and IV, respectively. The cost difference based on the stage at diagnosis was largely driven by the cost of chemotherapy and noncancer treatments.

conclusionTreating advanced- versus early-stage breast cancer is associated with significant increases in incremental costs. Knowledge of the relevant stage-specific cost data provides support for strengthening programs, such as breast cancer screening, that are designed to shift breast cancer diagnosis to earlier disease stages.

Indexed as

breast cancercancer stagecostdiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID27066193
PMCPMC4822976
OpenAlexW2283955056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.