Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:50:06.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economic Impact of Technical Change in the Local Treatment of Breast Cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Chidem Kurdas
Chidem Kurdas
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some studies suggest that breast-conserving treatment increases the cost of breast cancer. Estimates from a social perspective show that incremental cost depends on the proportion of lumpectomies done in outpatient facilities and on the demand for reconstructive surgery. Conservative treatment reduces spending within a reasonable range of values.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Winter 1997 , pp. 11 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 1995. New York: ACS, 1996.Google Scholar
2.Ancona-Berk, V., & Chalmers, T.An analysis of the costs of ambulatory and inpatient care. American Journal of Public Health, 1986, 76, 1102–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Brody, W. H. The economic value of a housewife. Research and Statistics, Note 9, DHEW Publication No. SSA 75–11701, Washington, DC: Social Security Administration, 1975.Google Scholar
3.Baker, M., Kessler, L., Urban, N., & Smucker, R.Estimating the treatment costs of breast and lung cancer. Medical Care, 1991, 29, 40–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Cady, B.New diagnostic, staging and therapeutic aspects of early breast cancer. Cancer, 1990, 65, 634–47.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Davidoff, A. J., & Powe, N. R.The role of perspective in defining economic measures for the evaluation of medical technology. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996, 12, 9–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Dongen, van J. A., Bartelink, H., Fentiman, I. S., et al. Randomized clinical trial to assess the value of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and stage II breast cancer, EORTC 10801 Trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 1992, 11, 15–18.Google Scholar
8.Drummond, M.Cost-of-illness studies: A major headache? PharmacoEconomics, 1992, 2, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Drummond, M., Stoddart, G. L., & Torance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
10.Fisher, B., Redmond, C., et al. Lumpectomy for breast cancer: An update of the NSABP experience. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 1992, 11, 7–13.Google Scholar
11.Fisher, B., Redmond, C., Poisson, U., et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 320, 822–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Hanks, G. E. Patterns of care of breast cancer. In Fowble, B., Goodman, R., Glick, J., & Rosato, E. (eds.), Breast cancer treatment: A comprehensive guide to management. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book, 1991, 585–600.Google Scholar
13.Helbing, C., Latta, V., & Keene, R. E.Hospital outpatient services under medicare, 1987. Health Care Financing Review, 1990, 11, 147–58.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Hodgson, T. A., & Meiners, M. R.Cost-of-illness methodology: A guide to current practices and procedures. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly: Health and Society, 1982, 60, 429–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Holland, J. C., & Mastrovito, R.Psychologic adaptation to breast cancer. Cancer, 1980, 46, 1045–48.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Institute of Medicine, Lohr, K. N. (ed.). Breast cancer: Setting priorities for effectivenes research: Report of a study by a committee. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.Google Scholar
17.Kolata, G.Ability to discover tiny breast tumor creates a dilemma. New York Times, 03 27, 1996, 1.Google Scholar
18.Latta, V., & Helbing, C.Medicare short-stay hospitals services by Diagnosis-Related Groups. Health Care Financing Review, 1991, 12, 105–38.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Lazovich, D., White, E., Thomas, D. B., & Moe, R. E.Underutilization of breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy among women with state I or II breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 266, 3433–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Luce, R., & Elixhauser, A.Estimating costs in the economic evaluation of medical technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Metropolitan life modified radical mastectomies: Average charges, 1988. Statistical Bulletin, 1990, 10/12, 26–32.Google Scholar
22.Morris, J., & Royle, G. T.Offering patients a choice of surgery for early breast cancer: A reduction in anxiety and depression in patients and their husbands. Social Science and Medicine, 1988, 26, 583–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Morrow, M., & Hassett, C.Breast cancer in young women: Issues in local therapy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 1994, 16, 79–84.Google Scholar
24.Munoz, E., Shamash, F., Friedman, M. et al. Lumpectomy vs. mastectomy: The costs of breast preservation for cancer. Archives of Surgery, 1986, 121, 1297–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. Consensus statement: Treat ment of early-stage breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 1992, 11 1–5.Google Scholar
26.Osteen, R., Cady, B., Friedman, M., et al. Patterns of care for younger women with breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 1994, 13, 43–46.Google Scholar
27.Polomano, R. C., Hagopian, G. A., & McEvoy, M.D. Management of the effects of breast cancer therapy and progressive disease. In Fowble, B., Goodman, R., Glick, J., and Rosato, E. (eds.), Breast cancer treatment: A comprehensive guide to management. St Louis: Mosby Year Book, 1991, 457–88.Google Scholar
28.Rice, D. P., Hodgson, T. A., & Kopstein, A. N.The economic cost of illness: A replication and update. Health Care Financing Review, 1985, 7, 61–80.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Ries, L., Miller, B., Harkey, B., Harras, A., & Edwards, B. (eds.). SEER cancer statistic review, 1973–1991. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute, 1994, NIH Publication No. 94–2789.Google Scholar
30.Roos, N. P., & Freeman, J. L.Potential for inpatient-outpatient substitution with diagnosis-related groups. Health Care Financing Review, 1989, 10, 31–38.Google ScholarPubMed
31.Scanlon, E.The role of reconstruction in breast cancer. Cancer, 1991, 68, 1144–47.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Scitovsky, A.Changes in the costs of treatment of selected illnesses, 1971–1981. Medical Care, 1985, 23, 1345–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Scitovsky, A., & McCall, N.Economic impact of breast cancer. Frontiers of Radiation Therapy and Oncology, 1976, 11, 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Simpson, J. S.The cost effectiveness of conservative surgery for breast cancer. Australian Health Review, 1982, 5, 18–19.Google ScholarPubMed
35.Straus, K., Lichter, A., Lippman, D., et al. Results of the National Cancer Institute early breast cancer trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 1992, 11, 27–32.Google Scholar
36. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Health Care Financing Review Statistical Supplement, 02, 1995.Google Scholar
37.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Vital and Health Statistics Series 13, 1983–92, issues 82–113.Google Scholar
38.U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Review, 1980–1995, selected issues.Google Scholar