The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions

References

• Alagoz O., Chhatwal J., Burnside E. S. Optimizing the level of follow-up mammography recommendations with comparison to current clinical practice. (2010) . Working paper, University of Wisconsin–Madison, MadisonGoogle Scholar
• Altman E.Constrained Markov Decision Processes (1999) (Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL) Google Scholar
• American College of RadiologyBreast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) (1998) (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA) Google Scholar
• Anders C. K., Hsu D. S., Broadwater G., Acharya C. R., Foekens J. A., Zhang Y., Wang Y., et al. Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression. J. Clinical Oncology (2008) 26(20):3324–3330Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arias E. United States life tables, 2003. Natl. Vital Statist. Rep. (2006) 54(14):1–40Google Scholar
• Ayer T., Alagoz O., Stout N. K. A POMDP approach to personalize mammography screening decisions. Oper. Res. (2012) . ePub ahead of print June 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1110.1019Link, Google Scholar
• Ayer T., Ayvaci M. U. S., Liu Z. X., Alagoz O., Burnside E. S. Computer-aided diagnostic models in breast cancer screening. Imaging in Medicine (2010a) 2(3):313–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ayer T., Alagoz O., Chhatwal J., Shavlik J. W., Kahn C. E., Burnside E. S. Breast cancer risk estimation with artificial neural networks revisited. Cancer (2010b) 116(14):3310–3321Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker J. A., Kornguth P. J., Lo J. Y., Williford M. E., Floyd C. E. Breast cancer: Prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. Radiology (1995) 196(3):817–822Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beam C. A., Layde P. M., Sullivan D. C. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by U.S. radiologists: Findings from a national sample. Arch. Internal Medicine (1996) 156(2):209–213Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg W. A., Campassi C., Langenberg P., Sexton M. J. Breast imaging reporting and data system: Inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Amer. J. Roentgenology (2000) 174(6):1769–1777Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry D. A., Cronin K. A., Plevritis S. K., Fryback D. G., Clarke L., Zelen M., Mandelblatt J. S., et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. New England J. Medicine (2005) 353(17):1784–1792Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beutler F. J., Ross K. W. Optimal policies for controlled Markov chains with a constraint. J. Math. Anal. Appl. (1985) 112(1):236–252Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beutler F. J., Ross K. W. Time-average optimal constrained semi-markov decision processes. Adv. Appl. Probab. (1986) 18(2):341–359Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breen N., Brown M. L. The price of mammography in the United States: Data from the national survey of mammography facilities. Milbank Quart. (1994) 72(3):431–450Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown M. L., Houn F., Sickles E. A., Kessler L. G. Screening mammography in community practice: Positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. Amer. J. Roentgenology (1995) 165(6):1373–1377Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burnside E., Belkora J., Esserman L. The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States. Clinical Breast Cancer (2001) 2(2):145–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burnside E. S., Davis J., Chhatwal J., Alagoz O., Lindstrom M. J., Geller B. M., Littenberg B., Shaffer K. A., Kahn C. E., Page C. D. Probabilistic computer model developed from clinical data in national mammography database format to classify mammographic findings. Radiology (2009) 251(3):663–672Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bynum J. P. W., Braunstein J. B., Sharkey P., Haddad K., Wu A. W. The influence of health status, age, and race on screening mammography in elderly women. Arch. Internal Medicine (2005) 165(18):2083–2088Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chhatwal J., Alagoz O., Burnside E. S. Optimal breast biopsy decision-making based on mammographic features and demographic factors. Oper. Res. (2010) 58(6):1577–1591Link, Google Scholar
• Chhatwal J., Alagoz O., Lindstrom M. J., Kahn C. E., Shaffer K. A., Burnside E. S. A logistic regression model to aid breast cancer diagnosis based on the national mammography database format. Amer. J. Roentgenology (2009) 192(4):1117–1127Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cortese D. A. A vision of individualized medicine in the context of global health. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (2007) 82(5):491–493Crossref, Google Scholar
• Derman C., Klein M. Some remarks on finite horizon Markovian decision models. Oper. Res. (1965) 13(2):272–278Link, Google Scholar
• Edwards B. K., Howe H. L., Ries L. A., Thun M. J., Rosenberg H. M., Yancik R., Wingo P. A., Jemal A., Feigal E. G. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1999, featuring implications of age and aging on U.S. cancer burden. Cancer (2002) 94(10):2766–2792Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elmore J. G., Wells C. K., Lee C. H., Howard D. H., Feinstein A. R. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. New England J. Medicine (1994) 331(22):1493–1499Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elmore J. G., Barton M. B., Moceri V. M., Polk S., Arena P. J., Fletcher S. W. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. New England J. Medicine (1998) 338(16):1089–1096Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elmore J. G., Jackson S. L., Abraham L., Miglioretti D. L., Carney P. A., Geller B. M., Yankaskas B. C., et al. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology (2009) 253(3):641–651Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ernster V. L., Barclay J., Kerlikowske K., Wilkie H., Ballard-Barbash R. Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Arch. Internal Medicine (2000) 160(7):953–958Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geller B. M., Barlow W. E., Ballard-Barbash R., Ernster V. L., Yankaskas B. C., Sickles E. A., Carney P. A., et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology (2002) 222(2):536–542Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghosh K., Melton L. J., Suman V. J., Grant C. S., Sterioff S., Brandt K. R., Branch C., Sellers T. A., Hartmann L. C. Breast biopsy utilization: A population-based study. Arch. Internal Medicine (2005) 165(14):1593–1598Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gram I. T., Lund E., Slenker S. E. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer (1990) 62(6):1018–1022Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greif J. M. Mammographic screening for breast cancer: An invited review of the benefits and costs. The Breast (2010) 19(4):268–272Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayat M. J., Howlader N., Reichman M. E., Edwards B. K. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. The Oncologist (2007) 12(1):20–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jayasinghe U. W., Taylor R., Boyages J. Is age at diagnosis an independent prognostic factor for survival following breast cancer? ANZ J. Surgery (2005) 75(9):762–767Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jemal A., Siegel R., Ward E., Murray T., Xu J., Thun M. J. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA: A Cancer J. for Clinicians (2007) 57(1):43–66Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kallenberg L. C. M. Unconstrained and constrained dynamic programming over a finite horizon. (1981) . Technical Report 81-46, University of Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
• Kallenberg L. C. M. Survey of linear programming for standard and nonstandard Markovian control problems. Part i: Theory. Math. Methods Oper. Res. (1994) 40(1):1–42Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerlikowske K. Evidence-based breast cancer prevention: The importance of individual risk. Ann. Internal Medicine (2009) 151(10):750–752Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerlikowske K., Grady D., Barclay J., Ernster V., Frankel S. D., Ominsky S. H., Sickles E. A. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (1998) 90(23):1801–1809Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerlikowske K., Carney P. A., Geller B., Mandelson M. T., Taplin S. H., Malvin K., Ernster V., et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann. Internal Medicine (2000) 133(11):855–863Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee C. P., Chertow G. M., Zenios S. A. Optimal initiation and management of dialysis therapy. Oper. Res. (2008) 56(6):1428–1449Link, Google Scholar
• Maillart L. M., Ivy J. S., Ransom S., Diehl K. Assessing dynamic breast cancer screening policies. Oper. Res. (2008) 56(6):1411–1427Link, Google Scholar
• Mandelblatt J. S., Wheat M. E., Monane M., Moshief R. D., Hollenberg J. P., Tang J. Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions. Ann. Internal Medicine (1992) 116(9):722–730Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mandelblatt J. S., Cronin K. A., Bailey S., Berry D. A., de Koning H. J., Draisma G., Huang H., et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann. Internal Medicine (2009) 151(10):738–747Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manne A. S. Linear programming and sequential decisions. Management Sci. (1960) 6(3):259–267Link, Google Scholar
• Marshall E. Brawling over mammography. Sci. (2010) 327(5968):936–938Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson H. D., Tyne K., Naik A., Bougatsos C., Chan B. K., Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: An update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann. Internal Medicine (2009) 151(10):727–737Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neumann P. J., Weinstein M. C. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. New England J. Medicine (2010) 363(16):1495–1497Crossref, Google Scholar
• Over M., Piot P. Human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases in developing countries: Public health importance and priorities for resource allocation. J. Infectious Diseases (1996) 174(Supplement 2):162–175Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parkin D. M., Ferlay J., Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA: A Cancer J. for Clinicians (2005) 55(2):74–108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poplack S. P., Carney P. A., Weiss J. E., Titus-Ernstoff L., Goodrich M. E., Tosteson A. N. A. Screening mammography: Costs and use of screening-related services. Radiology (2005) 234(1):79–85Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puterman M. L.Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming (1994) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical StatisticsCrossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg R. D., Yankaskas B. C., Abraham L. A., Sickles E. A., Lehman C. D., Geller B. M., Carney P. A., et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology (2006) 241(1):55–66Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin E. Six-month follow-up: An alternative view. Radiology (1999) 213(1):15–18Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandıkçı B., Maillart L. M., Schaefer A. J., Alagoz O., Roberts M. S. Estimating the patients price of privacy in liver transplantation. Oper. Res. (2008) 56(6):1393–1410Link, Google Scholar
• Schaefer A. J., Bailey M. D., Shechter S. M., Roberts M. S., Brandeau M., Sainfort F., Pierskalla W. Modeling medical treatment using Markov decision processes. Operations Research and Health Care: A Handbook of Methods and Applications (2004) (Kluwer Academic, Boston) 597–616Google Scholar
• Smith R. A., Cokkinides V., Brooks D., Saslow D., Brawley O. W. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: A review of current American cancer society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA: A Cancer J. for Clinicians (2010) 60(2):99–119Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith R. A., Saslow D., Sawyer K. A., Burke W., Costanza M. E., Evans W. P., Foster R. S., Hendrick E., Eyre H. J., Sener S. American cancer society guidelines for breast cancer screening: Update 2003. CA: A Cancer J. for Clinicians (2003) 53(3):141–169Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith-Bindman R., Chu P. W., Miglioretti D. L., Sickles E. A., Blanks R., Ballard-Barbash R., Bobo J. K., et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (2003) 290(16):2129–2137Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taplin S. H., Ichikawa L. E., Kerlikowske K., Ernster V. L., Rosenberg R. D., Yankaskas B. C., Carney P. A., et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology (2002) 222(2):529–535Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau Projections of the total resident population by 5-year age groups and sex with special age categories: Middle series, 1999 to 2100. (2000) . Report, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Accessed February 2, 2012, http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natsum-T3.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Vizcaíno I., Gadea L., Andreo L., Salas D., Ruiz-Perales F., Cuevas D., Herranz C., Bueno F.Screening Program Working Group Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology (2001) 219(2):475–483Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warner E. Breast-cancer screening. New England J. Medicine (2011) 365(11):1025–1032Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warren R., Eleti A. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: Is overdiagnosis an issue for radiologists? Breast Cancer Res. (2006) 8(2):205Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weinstein M. C., Siegel J. E., Gold M. R., Kamlet M. S., Russell L. B. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (1996) 276(15):1253–1258Crossref, Google Scholar
• Welch H. G., Black W. C. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (2010) 102(9):605–613Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yasmeen S., Romano P. S., Pettinger M., Chlebowski R. T., Robbins J. A., Lane D. S., Hendrix S. L. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (2003) 95(6):429–436Crossref, Google Scholar