Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34409255›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2021

Projecting the Prevalence and Costs of Metastatic Breast Cancer From 2015 through 2030.

Anagha Gogate, Stephanie B Wheeler, Katherine E Reeder-Hayes, Donatus U Ekwueme, Temeika L Fairley, Sarah Drier, Justin G Trogdon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Supervised Exercise for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis Alongside the PREFERABLE-EFFECT Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anagha GogateDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2891-8457
Stephanie B WheelerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Katherine E Reeder-HayesLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6903-0177
Donatus U EkwuemeDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Temeika L FairleyDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sarah DrierLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6380-6285
Justin G TrogdonDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5484-7870

Funding

ACL HHS U48DP005017NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study projected the number of metastatic breast cancer (mBC) cases and costs (medical and productivity) attributable to mBC through 2030 among 3 age groups: younger (aged 18-44 years), midlife (aged 45-64 years), and older women (aged 65 years and older). Methods: We developed a stock/flow model in which women enter the mBC population at initial diagnosis (de novo stage IV) or through progression of an earlier-stage cancer. Women exit the mBC population through death. Input parameters by age and phase of treatment came from the US Census, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and peer-reviewed literature. Results: In 2030, we estimated there would be 246 194 prevalent cases of mBC, an increase of 54.8% from the 2015 estimate of 158 997. We estimated total costs (medical and productivity) of mBC across all age groups and phases of care were $63.4 billion (95% sensitivity range = $59.4-$67.4 billion) in 2015 and would increase to $152.4 billion (95% sensitivity range = $111.6-$220.4 billion) in 2030, an increase of 140%. Trends in estimated costs were higher for younger and midlife women than for older women. Conclusions: The cost of mBC could increase substantially in the coming decade, especially among younger and midlife women. Although accounting for trends in incidence, progression, and survival, our model did not attempt to forecast structural changes such as technological innovations in breast cancer treatment and health-care delivery reforms. These findings can motivate early detection activities, direct value-driven mBC treatment, and provide a useful baseline against which to measure the effect of prevention and treatment efforts.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessForecastingHealth Care CostsAdultAgedAge DistributionBreast NeoplasmsCensusesDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPrevalenceSEER Program

Identifiers

PMID34409255
PMCPMC8364673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.