Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women

Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, Clyde B. Schechter, K. Robin Yabroff, William Lawrence, James Dignam, Peter Muennig, Yoko Chavez, Jennifer Cullen, Marianne Fahs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Historically, African American women have experienced higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite lower incidence. Our objective was to evaluate whether costs of increasing rates of screening or application of intensive treatment will be off-set by survival benefits for African American women. Methods: We use a stochastic simulation model of the natural history of breast cancer to evaluate the incremental societal costs and benefits of status quo versus targeted biennial screening or treatment improvements among African Americans 40 years of age and older. Main outcome measures were number of mammograms, stage, all-cause mortality, and discounted costs per life year saved (LYS). Results: At the current screening rate of 76%, there is little incremental benefit associated with further increasing screening, and the costs are high: $124,053 and $124,217 per LYS for lay health worker and patient reminder interventions, respectively, compared with the status quo. Using reminders would cost $51,537 per LYS if targeted to virtually unscreened women or $78,130 per LYS if targeted to women with a two-fold increase in baseline risk. If all patients received the most intensive treatment recommended, costs increase but deaths decrease, for a cost of $52,678 per LYS. Investments of up to $6,000 per breast cancer patient could be used to enhance treatment and still yield cost-effectiveness ratios of less than $75,000 per LYS. Conclusion: Except in pockets of unscreened or high-risk women, further investments in interventions to increase screening are unlikely to be an efficient use of resources. Ensuring that African American women receive intensive treatment seems to be the most cost-effective approach to decreasing the disproportionate mortality experienced by this population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2554-2566
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume22
Issue number13
DOIs
StatePublished - 2004

Fingerprint

African Americans
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Breast Neoplasms
Costs and Cost Analysis
Mortality
Therapeutics
Health Care Costs
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Survival
Incidence
Health
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women. / Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Yabroff, K. Robin; Lawrence, William; Dignam, James; Muennig, Peter; Chavez, Yoko; Cullen, Jennifer; Fahs, Marianne.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 22, No. 13, 2004, p. 2554-2566.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mandelblatt, JS, Schechter, CB, Yabroff, KR, Lawrence, W, Dignam, J, Muennig, P, Chavez, Y, Cullen, J & Fahs, M 2004, 'Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women', Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 13, pp. 2554-2566. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.05.009
Mandelblatt, Jeanne S. ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Yabroff, K. Robin ; Lawrence, William ; Dignam, James ; Muennig, Peter ; Chavez, Yoko ; Cullen, Jennifer ; Fahs, Marianne. / Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2004 ; Vol. 22, No. 13. pp. 2554-2566.
@article{e58a695a498745efa5735b9b56cb6b3c,
title = "Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women",
abstract = "Purpose: Historically, African American women have experienced higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite lower incidence. Our objective was to evaluate whether costs of increasing rates of screening or application of intensive treatment will be off-set by survival benefits for African American women. Methods: We use a stochastic simulation model of the natural history of breast cancer to evaluate the incremental societal costs and benefits of status quo versus targeted biennial screening or treatment improvements among African Americans 40 years of age and older. Main outcome measures were number of mammograms, stage, all-cause mortality, and discounted costs per life year saved (LYS). Results: At the current screening rate of 76{\%}, there is little incremental benefit associated with further increasing screening, and the costs are high: $124,053 and $124,217 per LYS for lay health worker and patient reminder interventions, respectively, compared with the status quo. Using reminders would cost $51,537 per LYS if targeted to virtually unscreened women or $78,130 per LYS if targeted to women with a two-fold increase in baseline risk. If all patients received the most intensive treatment recommended, costs increase but deaths decrease, for a cost of $52,678 per LYS. Investments of up to $6,000 per breast cancer patient could be used to enhance treatment and still yield cost-effectiveness ratios of less than $75,000 per LYS. Conclusion: Except in pockets of unscreened or high-risk women, further investments in interventions to increase screening are unlikely to be an efficient use of resources. Ensuring that African American women receive intensive treatment seems to be the most cost-effective approach to decreasing the disproportionate mortality experienced by this population.",
author = "Mandelblatt, {Jeanne S.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and Yabroff, {K. Robin} and William Lawrence and James Dignam and Peter Muennig and Yoko Chavez and Jennifer Cullen and Marianne Fahs",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2004.05.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "2554--2566",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "13",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women

AU - Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Yabroff, K. Robin

AU - Lawrence, William

AU - Dignam, James

AU - Muennig, Peter

AU - Chavez, Yoko

AU - Cullen, Jennifer

AU - Fahs, Marianne

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Purpose: Historically, African American women have experienced higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite lower incidence. Our objective was to evaluate whether costs of increasing rates of screening or application of intensive treatment will be off-set by survival benefits for African American women. Methods: We use a stochastic simulation model of the natural history of breast cancer to evaluate the incremental societal costs and benefits of status quo versus targeted biennial screening or treatment improvements among African Americans 40 years of age and older. Main outcome measures were number of mammograms, stage, all-cause mortality, and discounted costs per life year saved (LYS). Results: At the current screening rate of 76%, there is little incremental benefit associated with further increasing screening, and the costs are high: $124,053 and $124,217 per LYS for lay health worker and patient reminder interventions, respectively, compared with the status quo. Using reminders would cost $51,537 per LYS if targeted to virtually unscreened women or $78,130 per LYS if targeted to women with a two-fold increase in baseline risk. If all patients received the most intensive treatment recommended, costs increase but deaths decrease, for a cost of $52,678 per LYS. Investments of up to $6,000 per breast cancer patient could be used to enhance treatment and still yield cost-effectiveness ratios of less than $75,000 per LYS. Conclusion: Except in pockets of unscreened or high-risk women, further investments in interventions to increase screening are unlikely to be an efficient use of resources. Ensuring that African American women receive intensive treatment seems to be the most cost-effective approach to decreasing the disproportionate mortality experienced by this population.

AB - Purpose: Historically, African American women have experienced higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite lower incidence. Our objective was to evaluate whether costs of increasing rates of screening or application of intensive treatment will be off-set by survival benefits for African American women. Methods: We use a stochastic simulation model of the natural history of breast cancer to evaluate the incremental societal costs and benefits of status quo versus targeted biennial screening or treatment improvements among African Americans 40 years of age and older. Main outcome measures were number of mammograms, stage, all-cause mortality, and discounted costs per life year saved (LYS). Results: At the current screening rate of 76%, there is little incremental benefit associated with further increasing screening, and the costs are high: $124,053 and $124,217 per LYS for lay health worker and patient reminder interventions, respectively, compared with the status quo. Using reminders would cost $51,537 per LYS if targeted to virtually unscreened women or $78,130 per LYS if targeted to women with a two-fold increase in baseline risk. If all patients received the most intensive treatment recommended, costs increase but deaths decrease, for a cost of $52,678 per LYS. Investments of up to $6,000 per breast cancer patient could be used to enhance treatment and still yield cost-effectiveness ratios of less than $75,000 per LYS. Conclusion: Except in pockets of unscreened or high-risk women, further investments in interventions to increase screening are unlikely to be an efficient use of resources. Ensuring that African American women receive intensive treatment seems to be the most cost-effective approach to decreasing the disproportionate mortality experienced by this population.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4344648524&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4344648524&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.009

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.009

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 2554

EP - 2566

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 13

ER -