Assessing Multimodality Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for BRCA1/2 Gene Mutation Carriers and Other High-Risk Populations

References

• Akhavan-Tabatabaei R, Sánchez DM, Yeung TG (2017) A Markov decision process model for cervical cancer screening policies in Colombia. Medical Decision Making 37(2):196–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Ayer T, Erenay FS (2011) Operations research models for cancer screening. Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science (Wiley).Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society (2015) Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2015–2016 (Atlanta).Google Scholar
• American Cancer Society (2019) Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2019–2020 (Atlanta).Google Scholar
• American College of Radiology (2016) ACR appropriateness criteria: Breast cancer screening. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/70910/Narrative/.Google Scholar
• American Medical Association (2005) Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale 2005 (American Medical Association, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Antoniou AC, Pharoah PPD, Smith P, Easton DF (2004) The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. British J. Cancer 91(8):1580–1590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Antoniou AC, Durocher F, Smith P, Simard J, Easton DF (2005) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation predictions using the BOADICEA and BRCAPRO models and penetrance estimation in high-risk French-Canadian families. Breast Cancer Res. 8(1):R3.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J, Evans DG, Lalloo F, Narod SA, Risch HA, et al. (2008a) The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: Updates and extensions. British J. Cancer 98(8):1457–1466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Antoniou AC, Hardy R, Walker L, Evans DG, Shenton A, Eeles R, Shanley S, et al. (2008b) Predicting the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: Validation of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, Myriad and the Manchester scoring system using data from UK genetics clinics. J. Medical Genetics 45(7):425–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, Loman N, et al. (2003) Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: A combined analysis of 22 studies. Amer. J. Human Genetics 72(5):1117–1130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arias E (2007) United States life tables: 2004. National Vital Statist. Rep. 56(9):1–40.Google Scholar
• AskMayoExpert (2017) Breast ultrasonography (adult). Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. https://askmayoexpert.mayoclinic.org/topic/clinical-answers/prt-20144744/sec-20150193. Google Scholar
• Ayer T, Alagoz O, Stout NK (2012) OR forum—A POMDP approach to personalize mammography screening decisions. Oper. Res. 60(5):1019–1034.Link, Google Scholar
• Ayer T, Alagoz O, Stout NK, Burnside ES (2016) Heterogeneity in women’s adherence and its role in optimal breast cancer screening policies. Management Sci. 62(5):1339–1362.Link, Google Scholar
• Ayvaci MU, Alagoz O, Burnside ES (2012) The effect of budgetary restrictions on breast cancer diagnostic decisions. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 14(4):600–617.Link, Google Scholar
• Barcenas CH, Hosain GM, Arun B, Zong J, Zhou X, Chen J, Cortada JM, et al. (2006) Assessing BRCA carrier probabilities in extended families. J. Clinical Oncology 24(3):354–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB (2006) Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: Lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 241(2):355–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED (2016) Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: Analysis from ACRIN 6666. J. National Cancer Inst. 108(4):djv367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Behm-Velez M, Pisano ED, et al. (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299(18):2151–2163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, Bohm-Velez M, et al. (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307(13):1394–1404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blaes AH, Vogel RI, Raymond N, Talley K, Allen A, Nagler R, Teoh DGK, Mason S, Wyman J (2017) Breast cancer screening practices with high-risk women: A cross-sectional survey. J. Clinical Oncology 35(15_suppl):1550–1550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, Jong RA, et al. (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. New England J. Medicine 356(3):227–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Braithwaite D, Demb J, Henderson LM (2016) Optimal breast cancer screening strategies for older women: Current perspectives. Clinical Interventions Aging 3(11):111–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (2014) NCI-funded breast cancer surveillance consortium. Accessed November 30, http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/.Google Scholar
• Burnside ES, Chhatwal J, Alagoz O (2012) What is the optimal threshold at which to recommend breast biopsy? PLoS One 7(11):e48820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Çağlayan Ç (2019) Analytics approaches to improve strategic, operational, and clinical decision-making in healthcare. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.Google Scholar
• Cantor SB (1994) Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance, and ethics a quantitative assessment. Medical Decision Making 14(3):259–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017) Breast cancer screening guidelines for women. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/pdf/breastcancerscreeningguidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
• Cevik M, Ayer T, Alagoz O, Sprague B (2018) Analysis of mammography screening policies under resource constraints. Production Oper. Management 5(27):949–972.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen S, Parmigiani G (2007) Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J. Clinical Oncology 25(11):1329–1333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Z, Kolor K, Grosse SD, Rodriguez JL, Lynch JA, Green RF, Dotson WD, Bowen MS, Khoury MJ (2017) Trends in utilization and costs of BRCA testing among women aged 18–64 years in the United States, 2003–2014. Genetics Medicine 20(4):428–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chhatwal J, Alagoz O, Burnside ES (2010) Optimal breast biopsy decision-making based on mammographic features and demographic factors. Oper. Res. 58(6):1577–1591.Link, Google Scholar
• Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (2001) Familial breast cancer: Collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including women with breast cancer and 101,986 women without the disease. Lancet 358(209):1389–1399.Google Scholar
• Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Benichou J, Wieand HS (1999) Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J. National Cancer Inst. 91(18):1541–1548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cott Chubiz JE, Lee JM, Gilmore ME, Kong CY, Lowry KP, Halpern EF, McMahon PM, Ryan PD, Gazelle GS (2013) Cost‐effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Cancer 119(6):1266–1276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Bock VGH, Jansen KM, Oosterwijk L, Siesling JC, Dorrius S, Feenstra MD, Houssami NT, Greuter MW (2013) Which screening strategy should be offered to women with BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations? A simulation of comparative cost-effectiveness. British J. Cancer 108(8):1579–1586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Detsky AS, Naglie IG (1990) A clinician’s guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann. Internal Medicine 113(2):147–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dinan MA, Curtis LH, Hammill BG, Patz EF, Abernethy AP, Shea AM, Schulman KA (2010) Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999–2006. JAMA 303(16):1625–1631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drohan B, Roche CA, Cusack JC, Hughes KS (2012) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and other hereditary syndromes: Using technology to identify carriers. Ann. Surgical Oncology 19(6):1732–1737.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, Bell CM, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ (2000) Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J. Clinical Oncology 18(18):3302–3317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ebadi M, Akhavan-Tabatabaei R (2021) Personalized co-testing policies for cervical cancer screening: A POMDP approach. Mathematics 9(6):679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellynne D, Jonah B, Engel T (2014) An actuarial analysis of breast cancer screening and follow-on diagnostics in a commercially insured population. http://www.milliman.com/uploadedFiles/insight/2014/actuarial-analysis-breast-cancer-screening.pdf.Google Scholar
• Erenay FS, Alagoz O, Said A (2014) Optimizing colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer prevention and surveillance. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 16(3):381–400.Link, Google Scholar
• Farrington LC (2014) 2013 breast cancer screening guidelines and recommendations. Home Health Care Management Practice 26(1):45–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferreira CS, Rodrigues J, Moreira S, Ribeiro F, Longatto-Filho A (2021) Breast cancer screening adherence rates and barriers of implementation in ethnic, cultural and religious minorities: A systematic review. Molecular Clinical Oncology 15(1):1–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Kuruchittham V, Remington PL (2006) The Wisconsin breast cancer epidemiology simulation model. Monographs-National Cancer Inst. 36:37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gail MH, Mai PL (2010) Comparing breast cancer risk assessment models. J. National Cancer Inst. 102(10):665–668.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gail MH, Costantino JP, Bryant J, Croyle R, Freedman L, Heizlsouer K, Vogel V (1999) Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J. National Cancer Inst. 91(21):1829–1846.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE (1990) Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. British J. Cancer 62(6):1018–1022.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granader EJ, Dwamena B, Carlos RC (2008) MRI and mammography surveillance of women at increased risk for breast cancer: Recommendations using an evidence-based approach. Acad. Radiology 15(12):1590–1595.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene T, Cocilovo C, Estabrook A, Chinitz L, Giuliano C, Smith SR, Tartter PI (2006) A single institution review of new breast malignancies identified solely by sonography. J. Amer. College Surgeons 203(6):894–898.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griebsch I, Brown J, Boggis C, Dixon A, Dixon M, Easton D, Eeles R, et al. (2006) Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs x-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. British J. Cancer 95(7):801–810.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Güneş ED, Örmeci EL, Kunduzcu D (2015) Preventing and diagnosing colorectal cancer with a limited colonoscopy resource. Production Oper. Management 24(1):1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo F, Hirth JM, Lin YL, Richardson G, Levine L, Berenson AB, Kuo YF (2017) Use of BRCA mutation test in the US, 2004–2014. Amer. J. Preventive Medicine 52(6):702–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hagen AI, Kvistad KA, Maehle L, Holmen MM, Aase H, Styr B, Vabø A, Apold J, Skaane P, Miller P (2007) Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast 16(4):367–374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hajjar A, Alagoz O (2023) Personalized disease screening decisions considering a chronic condition. Management Sci. 69(1):260–282.Link, Google Scholar
• Helmeczi RK, Kavaklioglu C, Cevik M, Pirayesh Neghab D (2023) A multi-objective constrained partially observable Markov decision process model for breast cancer screening. Oper. Res. 23(2):30.Google Scholar
• Houssami N, Miglioretti D (2016) Screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Screening: Making Sense of Complex and Evolving Evidence (Academic Press).Google Scholar
• Houssami N, Ciatto S, Irwig L, Simpson JM, Macaskill P (2002) The comparative sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms: An age-specific analysis. Breast 11(2):125–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ (2009) Cancer statistics. Cancer J. Clinicians 59(4):225–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225(1):165–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kosters JP, Gotzsche PC (2003) Regular self-examination or clinical examination for early detection of breast cancer. The Cochrane Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003373.Google Scholar
• Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, Manoliu RA, et al. (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. New England J. Medicine 351(5):427–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, Jervis S, et al. (2017) Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA 317(23):2402–2416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, Kuhn W, Schild HH (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J. Clinical Oncology 23(33):8469–8476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kurian AW, Munoz DF, Rust P, Schackmann EA, Smith M, Clarke L, Mills MA, Plevritis SK (2012) Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J. Clinical Oncology 30(5):497–506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lam DL, Houssami N, Lee JM (2017) Imaging surveillance after primary breast cancer treatment. Amer. J. Roentgenology 208(3):676–686.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, Gilbert FJ, et al. (2005) Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365(9473):1769–1778.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CI, Bassett LW, Lehman CD (2012) Breast density legislation and opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research. Radiology 264(3):632–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee AJ, Cunningham AP, Kuchenbaecker KB, Mavaddat N, Easton DF, Antoniou AC (2014) BOADICEA breast cancer risk prediction model: Updates to cancer incidences, tumour pathology and web interface. British J. Cancer 110(2):535–545.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, Brenner RJ, et al. (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: Recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J. Amer. College Radiology 7(1):18–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lehman CD, Lee CI, Loving VA, Portillo MS, Peacock S, DeMartini WB (2012) Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30–39 years of age. Amer. J. Roentgenology 199(5):1169–1177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li W, Denton BT, Morgan TM (2022) Optimizing active surveillance for prostate cancer using partially observable Markov decision processes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 305(1):386–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Y, Zhu M, Klein R, Kong N (2014) Using a partially observable Markov chain model to assess colonoscopy screening strategies-a cohort study. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238(1):313–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A, Apicella C, Dite GS, Dowty JG, Aujard K, Phillips KA, et al. (2013) Prospective validation of the breast cancer risk prediction model BOADICEA and a batch-mode version BOADICEA Centre. British J. Cancer 109(5):1296–1301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madadi M, Molani S, Williams DL (2023) Investigating the effectiveness of supplemental breast cancer screening tests considering radiologists’ bias. IISE Trans. Healthcare Systems Engrg. 13(1):1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maillart LM, Ivy JS, Ransom S, Diehl K (2008) Assessing dynamic breast cancer screening policies. Oper. Res. 56(6):1411–1427.Link, Google Scholar
• Mandelblatt JS, Wheat ME, Monane M, Moshief RD, Hollenberg JP, Tang J (1992) Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions: A decision analysis model. Ann. Internal Medicine 116(9):722–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML (2011) Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010–2020. J. National Cancer Inst. 103(2):117–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merdan S, Barnett CL, Denton BT, Montie JE, Miller DC (2021) OR practice—Data analytics for optimal detection of metastatic prostate cancer. Oper. Res. 69(3):774–794.Link, Google Scholar
• Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Lynch H, Moller P, Ghadirian P, et al. (2008) International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Internat. J. Cancer 122(9):2017–2022.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Molani S, Madadi M, Wilkes W (2019) A partially observable Markov chain framework to estimate over-diagnosis risk in breast cancer screening: Incorporating uncertainty in patients adherence behaviors. Omega 89:40–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore SG, Shenoy PJ, Fanucchi L, Tumeh JW, Flowers CR (2009) Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population. BMC Health Services Res. 9(1):9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narayan AK, Visvanathan K, Harvey SC (2016) Comparative effectiveness of breast MRI and mammography in screening young women with elevated risk of developing breast cancer: A retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. Treatment 158(3):583–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Cancer Institute (2013) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program research data 1973–2011 when using seer stat. www.seer.cancer.gov.Google Scholar
• National Cancer Institute (2015) BRCA mutations: Cancer risk and genetic testing. Accessed January 30, 2018, https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics/brca-fact-sheet#r15.Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2017) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Breast cancer screening and diagnosis. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf.Google Scholar
• Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L (2009) Screening for breast cancer: An update for the US preventive services task force. Ann. Internal Medicine 151(10):727–737.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC (2014) Updating cost-effectiveness-the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. New England J. Medicine 371(9):796–797.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG (2016) Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Oxford University Press).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Otten M, Timmer J, Witteveen A (2020) Stratified breast cancer follow-up using a continuous state partially observable Markov decision process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 281(2):464–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Owens WL, Gallagher TJ, Kincheloe MJ, Ruetten VL (2011) Implementation in a large health system of a program to identify women at high risk for breast cancer. J. Oncology Practice 7(2):85–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, Aucreman CJ, Cardenosa G, Cink TM, Coscia JL Jr, Eklund GW, Evans WP 3rd, Garver PR (1994) Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: A multi-institutional study. Radiology 193(2):359–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pataky R, Armstrong L, Chia S, Coldman AJ, Kim-Sing C, McGillivray B, Scott J, Wilson CM, Peacock S (2013) Cost-effectiveness of MRI for breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. BMC Cancer 13:339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petousis P, Winter A, Speier W, Aberle DR, Hsu W, Bui AA (2019) Using sequential decision making to improve lung cancer screening performance. IEEE Access 7:119403–119419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, Daniel BL, Ikeda DM, Stockdale FE, Garber AM (2006) Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 295(20):2374–2384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prayogo N, Pirayesh Neghab D, Rafayal SM, Cevik M (2022) Partially observable Markov chain models for evaluating lung cancer screening policies. Proc. 32nd Annual Internat. Conf. Comput. Sci. Software Engrg., 81–90. Google Scholar
• Rauner MS, Gutjahr WJ, Heidenberger K, Wagner J, Pasia J (2010) Dynamic policy modeling for chronic diseases: Metaheuristic-based identification of pareto-optimal screening strategies. Oper. Res. 58(5):1269–1286.Link, Google Scholar
• Reimers L, Crew KD (2012) Tamoxifen versus raloxifene versus exemestane for chemoprevention. Current Breast Cancer Rep. 4(3):207–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rice JD, Johnson BA, Strawderman RL (2022) Screening for chronic diseases: Optimizing lead time through balancing prescribed frequency and individual adherence. Lifetime Data Anal. 28(4):605–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riedl CC, Luft N, Bernhart C, Weber M, Bernathova M, Tea MKM, Rudas M, Singer CF, Helbich TH (2015) Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. J. Clinical Oncology 33(10):1128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saadatmand S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Rutgers EJ, Hoogerbrugge N, Oosterwijk JC, Tollenaar RA, Hooning M, et al. (2013) Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. J. National Cancer Inst. 105(17):1314–1321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandikci B, Cevik M, Schacht D (2018) Screening for breast cancer: The role of supplemental tests and breast density information. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, Manoukian S, Bergonzi S, Trecate G, Vergnaghi D, et al. (2011) Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk Italian 1 study): Final results. Investigative Radiology 46(2):94–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, Morris E, et al. (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. Cancer J. Clinicians 57(2):75–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scheel JR, Lee JM, Sprague BL, Lee CI, Lehman CD (2015) Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. Amer. J. Obstetrics Gynecology 212(1):9–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH (2015) Current status of automated breast ultrasonography. Ultrasonography 34(3):165–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shiyanbola OO, Arao RF, Miglioretti DL, Sprague BL, Hampton JM, Stout NK, Kerlikowske K, et al. (2017) Emerging trends in family history of breast cancer and associated risk. Cancer Epidemiology Prevention Biomarkers 26(12):1753–1760.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, Zalcberg J, Meropol NJ, Amir E, Khayat D, et al. (2011) Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncology 12(10):933–980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group (2006) Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prevention 15(1):45–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taneja C, Edelsberg J, Weycker D, Guo A, Oster G, Weinreb J (2009) Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening with contrast-enhanced MRI in high-risk women. J. Amer. College Radiology 6(3):171–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, Acharyya S, Herman BA, Hannah LG, Pisano ED (2008) Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann. Internal Medicine 148(1):1–10.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tunç S, Alagoz O, Burnside ES (2022) A new perspective on breast cancer diagnostic guidelines to reduce overdiagnosis. Production Oper. Management 31(5):2361–2378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2014) Clinical summary: BRCA-related cancer: Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/ClinicalSummaryFinal/brca-related-cancer-risk-assessment-genetic-counseling-and-genetic-testing.Google Scholar
• U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) Breast cancer screening: Final update—Recommendation summary. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/breast-cancer-screening1.Google Scholar
• Velanovich V (1995) Immediate biopsy versus observation for abnormal findings on mammograms: An analysis of potential outcomes and costs. Amer. J. Surgery 170(4):327–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walter LC, Schonberg MA (2014) Screening mammography in older women: A review. JAMA 311(13):1336–1347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D (2008) Systematic review: Using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann. Internal Medicine 148(9):671–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, Cutrara MR, et al. (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292(11):1317–1325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB (1996) Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276(15):1253–1258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A, Warren JL, Topor M, Meekins A, Brown ML (2008) Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J. National Cancer Inst. 100(9):630–641.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yoon JH, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Moon HJ (2015) Imaging surveillance of patients with breast cancer after primary treatment: Current recommendations. Korean J. Radiology 16(2):219–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zervoudis S, Iatrakis G, Tomara E, Bothou A, Papadopoulos G, Tsakiris G (2014) Main controversies in breast cancer. World J. Clinical Oncology 5(3):359–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Denton BT, Morgan TM (2022) Optimization of active surveillance strategies for heterogeneous patients with prostate cancer. Production Oper. Management 31(11):4021–4037.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Denton BT, Balasubramanian H, Shah ND, Inman BA (2012) Optimization of PSA screening policies: A comparison of the patient and societal perspectives. Medical Decision Making 32(2):337–349.Crossref, Google Scholar