Suppr超能文献

评估新筛查方式对医疗保健利用和成本的影响:以数字乳腺 X 光摄影为例。

Assessing health care use and cost consequences of a new screening modality: the case of digital mammography.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7515, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 2012 Dec;50(12):1045-52. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318269e0d1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has largely replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) for breast cancer screening, but how this affects downstream breast-related use and costs is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare breast-related health care use and costs among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SFM versus FFDM from 1999 to 2005.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Medicare-enrolled women aged 66 and older with mammograms in Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries.

MEASURES

Subsequent follow-up with additional imaging or breast biopsy within 12 months was ascertained through Medicare claims. Associated mean costs were estimated by screening modality and year, adjusting for confounding factors, and clustering within mammography facilities using Generalized Estimating Equations.

RESULTS

Among 138,199 women, 332,324 SFM and 22,407 FFDM mammograms were analyzed. Approximately 6.5% of SFM and 9.0% of FFDM had positive findings. In 2001, subsequent imaging was higher among FFDM versus SFM (127.5 vs. 97.4 follow-up mammography claims per 1000 index mammograms), whereas subsequent biopsy was lower among FFDM versus SFM (19.2 vs. 24.9 per 1000 index mammograms) with differences decreasing over time. From 2001 to 2004, mammography subsequent to FFDM had higher mean costs than SFM ($82.60 vs. $64.31 in 2001). The only cost differences between SFM and FFDM for ultrasound or biopsy were in 2001.

CONCLUSIONS

Subsequent breast-related health care use differed early in FFDM introduction, but diminished over time with differences attributable to higher recall rates for additional imaging and lower rates of biopsy in those undergoing FFDM versus SFM. Remaining cost differences are because of higher reimbursement rates for FFDM versus SFM.

摘要

背景

全数字化乳腺 X 线摄影(FFDM)已在很大程度上取代了屏-片乳腺摄影(SFM)用于乳腺癌筛查,但这对下游乳腺相关的使用和成本有何影响尚不清楚。

目的

比较 1999 年至 2005 年期间接受 SFM 与 FFDM 检查的 Medicare 受益人的乳腺相关保健服务使用和成本。

设计

回顾性队列研究。

受试者

参加 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 注册的年龄在 66 岁及以上、接受过乳腺 X 线摄影的 Medicare 参保女性。

测量方法

通过 Medicare 理赔确定在 12 个月内进行额外影像学检查或乳腺活检的后续随访情况。根据筛查方式和年份,调整混杂因素,并使用广义估计方程对乳腺摄影设施进行聚类,估计相关的平均成本。

结果

在 138199 名女性中,分析了 332324 次 SFM 和 22407 次 FFDM 乳腺 X 线摄影。约 6.5%的 SFM 和 9.0%的 FFDM 有阳性发现。2001 年,FFDM 比 SFM 的后续影像学检查更高(每 1000 次基准乳腺 X 线摄影有 127.5 次 vs. 97.4 次后续乳腺 X 线摄影检查),而 FFDM 比 SFM 的后续活检更少(每 1000 次基准乳腺 X 线摄影有 19.2 次 vs. 24.9 次),且这种差异随着时间的推移而减少。从 2001 年到 2004 年,FFDM 后进行的乳腺 X 线摄影的平均成本高于 SFM(2001 年为 82.60 美元 vs. 64.31 美元)。仅在 2001 年,SFM 和 FFDM 之间在超声或活检方面存在成本差异。

结论

FFDM 引入早期,乳腺相关保健服务的使用存在差异,但随着时间的推移,差异逐渐缩小,原因是对附加影像学检查的召回率较高,以及 FFDM 与 SFM 相比,活检率较低。剩余的成本差异是由于 FFDM 与 SFM 的报销率较高所致。

相似文献

2
Effects of digital mammography uptake on downstream breast-related care among older women.
Med Care. 2012 Dec;50(12):1053-9. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318269e9c2.

引用本文的文献

1
Utilization and Cost of Mammography Screening Among Commercially Insured Women 50 to 64 Years of Age in the United States, 2012-2016.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2020 Mar;29(3):327-337. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7543. Epub 2019 Oct 15.
2
The Empirical Foundations of Teleradiology and Related Applications: A Review of the Evidence.
Telemed J E Health. 2016 Nov;22(11):868-898. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2016.0149. Epub 2016 Sep 1.
5
Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 May 28;106(6):dju092. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju092. Print 2014 Jun.
6
Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Apr;138(3):879-87. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2466-5. Epub 2013 Mar 8.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):493-502. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00005.
3
Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms.
Med Care. 2010 Sep;48(9):815-20. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e57918.
4
Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of medications to reduce risk for primary breast cancer.
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):703-15, W-226-35. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00147.
5
When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.
Radiology. 2009 Dec;253(3):632-40. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2533090070. Epub 2009 Sep 29.
6
Why does it take longer to read digital than film-screen screening mammograms? A partial explanation.
J Digit Imaging. 2010 Apr;23(2):170-80. doi: 10.1007/s10278-009-9177-9. Epub 2009 Feb 13.
7
Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jan;192(1):216-20. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3608.
9
Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 1;148(1):1-10. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-1-200801010-00002.
10
Recent advances in breast-specific imaging.
Cancer Control. 2007 Oct;14(4):338-49. doi: 10.1177/107327480701400404.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验