Skip header and navigation

Refine By

9 records – page 1 of 1.

Breast cancer survival in ontario and california, 1998-2006: socioeconomic inequity remains much greater in the United States.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature152844
Source
Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;19(2):121-4
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2009
Author
Kevin M Gorey
Isaac N Luginaah
Eric J Holowaty
Karen Y Fung
Caroline Hamm
Author Affiliation
School of Social Work, University of Windsor, Ontario. gorey@uwindsor.ca
Source
Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;19(2):121-4
Date
Feb-2009
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Breast Neoplasms - economics - mortality
California - epidemiology
Female
Healthcare Disparities
Humans
Ontario - epidemiology
Poverty Areas
Social Class
Survival Analysis
Abstract
This study re-examined the differential effect of socioeconomic status on the survival of women with breast cancer in Canada and the United States. Ontario and California cancer registries provided 1,913 cases from urban and rural places. Stage-adjusted cohorts (1998-2000) were followed until 2006. Socioeconomic data were taken from population censuses. SES-survival associations were observed in California, but not in Ontario, and Canadian survival advantages in low-income areas were replicated. A better controlled and updated comparison reaffirmed the equity advantage of Canadian health care.
Notes
Cites: J Public Health Med. 2000 Sep;22(3):343-811077908
Cites: Clin Invest Med. 2009;32(3):E239-4919480739
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Sep 1;156(5):471-8212196317
Cites: Ann Epidemiol. 2003 Jan;13(1):32-4112547483
Cites: Am J Public Health. 2003 Oct;93(10):1655-7114534218
Cites: Arch Intern Med. 2003 Oct 13;163(18):2135-4414557210
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 1976 Feb;103(2):226-351251836
Cites: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Jun 16;85(12):979-878496983
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1994 Mar;84(3):367-768129051
Cites: Am J Public Health. 1997 Jul;87(7):1156-639240106
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jan;59(1):67-7616360563
Cites: Am J Public Health. 2006 Jan;96(1):160-616317209
Cites: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 Jan;101(2):207-1416838114
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jun 20;25(18):2516-2117577028
Cites: J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jun 20;25(18):2522-717577029
Cites: Breast J. 2008 Mar-Apr;14(2):128-3418315690
Cites: Can J Public Health. 2008 Jan-Feb;99(1):12-618435383
Cites: Am J Public Health. 2008 Jul;98(7):1280-717971555
Cites: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Feb;113(3):595-60018330694
Cites: Am J Public Health. 2000 Dec;90(12):1866-7211111258
PubMed ID
19185806 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Cost-effectiveness of mammography screening in Norway]

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature20750
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1999 Oct 10;119(24):3553-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
Oct-10-1999
Author
R. KÃ¥resen
J K Bø
S. Haustveit
A. Hervik
S O Thoresen
Author Affiliation
Gastrokirurgisk avdeling, Ullevål sykehus, Oslo.
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1999 Oct 10;119(24):3553-9
Date
Oct-10-1999
Language
Norwegian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Breast Neoplasms - economics - mortality - prevention & control
Cost of Illness
Cost-Benefit Analysis
English Abstract
Female
Humans
Mammography - economics
Mass Screening - economics
Norway - epidemiology
Prevalence
Prognosis
Abstract
Since January 1996, mammography screening every second year has been offered to women aged 50 to 69 in four counties in Norway. As an input to the evaluation of the programme, medical authorities commissioned an analysis of the cost-efficacy of screening. The results are presented in this paper. This study of the screening in the City of Oslo is based on registration of time used on various procedure, data for all procedure performed, and financial accounting data. The result have been recalculated for a simulated nation-wide project. Only costs up to the time of diagnosis (malignant/benign) have been included. The total cost of the Oslo programme 1996/97 was NOK 12.1 m (USD 1.6 m). Cost per women examined was NOK 395 and per cancer detected NOK 57,639. Cost per life saved was estimated at NOK 680,000, per year-of-life saved NOK 30,000. Based on accounting data only, comparisons could be made between counties. Costs in other counties were between 39 and 73% higher than in Oslo. Using an estimate of a 40% higher costs nation-wide, we find that the total cost of one year of nation-wide (population 4.5 m) screening would amount to NOK 83 m, cost per life saved to NOK 950,000, and per year-of-life saved to NOK 41,000. Estimated cost per life saved by traffic safety measures has been NOK 10 m. On this basis, mammography screening in Norway seems to be a highly cost-effective measure.
Notes
Comment In: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1999 Dec 10;119(30):461010827509
Comment In: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2000 Jan 20;120(2):256-710851926
PubMed ID
10563171 View in PubMed
Less detail

Effect of screening for cancer in the Nordic countries on deaths, cost and quality of life up to the year 2017.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature22333
Source
Acta Oncol. 1997;36 Suppl 9:1-60
Publication Type
Article
Date
1997
Author
L. Hristova
M. Hakama
Author Affiliation
Finnish Cancer Registry, University of Tampere School of Public Health.
Source
Acta Oncol. 1997;36 Suppl 9:1-60
Date
1997
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Breast Neoplasms - economics - mortality - prevention & control
Colorectal Neoplasms - economics - mortality - prevention & control
Costs and Cost Analysis
Female
Health Care Costs
Humans
Incidence
Male
Mass Screening - economics
Middle Aged
Neoplasms - economics - mortality - prevention & control
Quality of Life
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Scandinavia - epidemiology
Survival Rate
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - economics - mortality - prevention & control
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of screening for cancer in the Nordic countries. There is sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that screening for cervical cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer will result in a reduction in mortality. The effects on mortality were predicted for the future up to the year 2017 assuming that the Nordic countries are covered by screening as a nation-wide population-based public health policy and comparing the predicted mortality trends with those assuming no screening programmes. For cervical cancer the programme as practised in Finland was used as a point of reference. For breast cancer and for colorectal cancer the results of randomized preventive trials were assumed in the absence of detailed results based on any public health policy, i.e., a reduction of 30% in mortality from breast cancer and 20% in mortality from colorectal cancer. The assumed ages and frequencies of screening ranged from 25 to 59 years at 5-year intervals for cervical cancer, from 50 to 69 at 2-year intervals for breast cancer and annual screening from 50 to 74 years for colorectal cancer. Data on incidence and incidence predicted up to the year 2012, mortality, survival and size of the general population were employed in the estimation. Age-cohort and age-period-cohort log-linear models were applied in predicting future mortality rates with and without screening. The choice of the models depended on the age distribution of deaths from each particular site of cancer, on changes in public health policy, such as establishment of mass-screening, and on the goodness of fit of the model. The screening policy assumed would result in 1600 annual deaths prevented out of the potential 13,600 deaths in the Nordic countries in 1995, corresponding to 11% of the deaths from the three primary sites. Only after the year 2010 will the ultimate effect of such a screening policy have as full an effect and in 2013-2017 the annual number of cancer deaths prevented will be 3900 out of 15,000 potential deaths, i.e., a 26% reduction. This is equal to 5.7% of all cancer deaths in the Nordic countries in 2013-2017 (2.0% for males and 9.7% for females). The predicted numbers of annual deaths prevented in 2013-2017 are 1500 for cervical cancer, 1000 for breast cancer and 1500 for colorectal cancer. Most (91%) of the cervical cancers can be prevented, whereas the proportion of breast cancer deaths (18%) and colorectal cancer deaths (18%) prevented will be much smaller. Costs of the screening programmes were estimated taking into consideration the direct costs of screening and savings from advanced disease treatment and terminal care. The total cost of screening for cervical, breast and colorectal cancer in the Nordic countries in the year 2010 is estimated to be $111 m. Cervical cancer screening is estimated to save $17 m yearly in the period 2008-2012. Screening for cervical cancer is approaching a phase when both the effect and costs are relatively stable and it was estimated to be cost-saving. The effect of screening for breast and colorectal cancers is expected to become apparent gradually during the predicted period due to the increasing number (and percentage) of patients diagnosed by screening. When the screening programmes are assumed to achieve the optimal effect, the reduction in mortality will increase and treatment costs fall, resulting in a substantial decrease in the cost-effectiveness ratio. In the last considered period (2008-2012) the costs per life year gained (breast cancer $15,400, colorectal cancer $5700) are approximately one half of those at the onset of screening. The differences in the costs per LYG were relatively small between the Nordic countries and mainly dependent on the differences in baseline risk of cancer. The total cost of the three screening programmes was estimated at $4400 per life years gained in the year 2010.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
PubMed ID
9143316 View in PubMed
Less detail

Evidence of efficacy of mammographic screening for women in their forties.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature217524
Source
Cancer. 1994 Aug 15;74(4):1204-6
Publication Type
Article
Date
Aug-15-1994

[Offering mammography is beneficial in the long run]

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature22968
Source
Lakartidningen. 1995 Dec 20;92(51-52):4865-8
Publication Type
Article
Date
Dec-20-1995
Author
S. Cederblom
Author Affiliation
Skandinavisk mammografi, Göteborg.
Source
Lakartidningen. 1995 Dec 20;92(51-52):4865-8
Date
Dec-20-1995
Language
Swedish
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Breast Neoplasms - economics - mortality - prevention & control
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Female
Humans
Mammography - economics
Mass Screening - economics
Middle Aged
Sweden - epidemiology
PubMed ID
8544497 View in PubMed
Less detail

The Skinner Lecture: a cost-benefit analysis of postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of early breast cancer.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature24800
Source
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1991 Jul;3(4):223-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jul-1991

The Stockholm Mammographic Screening Trial: Risks and benefits in age group 40-49 years.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature22249
Source
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;(22):49-51
Publication Type
Article
Date
1997
Author
J. Frisell
E. Lidbrink
Author Affiliation
Department of Surgery, Stockholm Söder Hospital, Sweden.
Source
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;(22):49-51
Date
1997
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Breast Neoplasms - economics - mortality - prevention & control - radiography
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Female
Humans
Mammography - economics
Mass Screening - economics - methods
Middle Aged
Predictive value of tests
Risk factors
Sweden - epidemiology
Abstract
This article presents updated data on breast cancer mortality for women under age 50 from the Stockholm Mammographic Screening Trial, as well as a review of some side effects associated with screening in this age group. Approximately 40,000 women aged 40-64 (14,842 aged 40-49 years) were randomized to a trial of breast cancer screening by single-view mammography alone; 20,000 women (7,103 aged 10-49) were randomized to a control group. In the 40-49 age group, 24 and 12 breast cancer deaths were found in the study and control groups, respectively, after 11.4 years of follow-up. The relative risk of breast cancer death in screened to nonscreened women was 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.54-2.17). The rates of benign surgical biopsies, false positives, and follow-up costs were higher among women under age 50. Large overview studies are needed, however, to determine whether mammography screening consistently reduces mortality in women 40-49 years of age. Side effects such as costs and public aspects of mammography screening in this age group also warrant further study.
PubMed ID
9709275 View in PubMed
Less detail

9 records – page 1 of 1.