Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Cancer Screening Services: Trade-offs in Quality, Capacity, Outreach, and Centralization

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work combines and extends previous work on breast cancer screening models by explicitly incorporating, for the first time, aspects of the dynamics of health care states, program outreach, and the screening volume-quality relationship in a service system model to examine the effect of public health policy and service capacity decisions on public health outcomes. We consider the impact of increasing standards for minimum reading volume to improve quality, expanding outreach with or without decentralization of service facilities, and the potential of queueing due to stochastic effects and limited capacity. The results indicate a strong relation between screening quality and the cost of screening and treatment, and emphasize the importance of accounting for service dynamics when assessing the performance of health care interventions. For breast cancer screening, increasing outreach without improving quality and maintaining capacity results in less benefit than predicted by standard models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Imaginis, Breast cancer: Statistics on incidence, survival and screening (2002), imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp#1, retrieved on 17 May 2004.

  2. American Cancer Society, ACS, Cancer facts and figures, Atlanta, GA (2003).

  3. H. Thornton, A. Edwards and M. Baum, Women need better information about routine mammography, British Medical Journal 327 (2003) 101–103.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Klabunde, F. Bouchard, S. Taplin, A. Scharpantgen and R. Ballard-Barbash, Quality assurance for screening mammography: An international comparison, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55 (2001) 204–212.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. Lee and W. Pierskalla, Mass screening models for contagious diseases with no latent period, Operations Research 36 (1998) 917–928.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Ozekici and S. Pliska, Optimal scheduling of inspections: A delayed Markov model with false positives and negatives, Operations Research 39 (1991) 261–273.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Lapierre, D. Ratliff and D. Goldsman, The delivery of preventive health services: A general model, Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology (1997).

  8. V. Verter and S. Lapierre, Location of preventive health care facilities, Annals of Operations Research 110 (2002) 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  9. N.E. Day and S.D. Walter, Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: Estimation procedures from mass screening programs, Biometrics 40 (1984) 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Zelen, Optimal scheduling of examinations for the early detection of disease, Biometrika 80 (1993) 279–293.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S.W. Duffy, H.H. Che, L. Tabar and N.E. Day, Estimation of mean sojourn time in breast cancer screening using a Markov chain model of both entry to and exit from the preclinical detectable phase, Statistics in Medicine 14 (1995) 1531–1543.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Xu, M.R. Fagerstrom and P. Prorok, Estimation of post-lead-time survival under dependence between lead-time and post-lead-time survival, Statistics in Medicine 18 (1999) 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. Nutting, D. Iverson, N. Calonge and L. Green, The danger of applying uniform clinical policies across populations: The case of breast cancer in American Indians, American Journal of Public Health 84 (1994) 1634–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. F. Boer, H. de Koning, P. Warmerdam, A. Street, E. Friedman and C. Woodman, Cost effectiveness of shortening screening interval or extending age range of NHS breast screening programme: Computer simulation study, British Medical Journal 317 (1998) 376–379.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P.M. Clarke, Cost benefit analysis and mammographic screening: A travel cost approach, Journal of Health Economics 17 (1998) 7367–787.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Gyrd-Hansen and J. Søgaard, Analyzing public preferences for cancer screening programs, Health Economics 10 (2001) 617–634.

    Google Scholar 

  17. W.A. Berg, C.J. D’Orsi, V.P. Jackson, L.W. Bassett, C.A. Beam, R.S. Lewis and P. Crewson, Does training in the breast imaging reporting and data system ({BI-RADS}) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers or mammography? Radiology 224 (2002) 871–880.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. J.P. Caulkins and G. Tragler, Dynamic drug policy: An introduction and overview, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 38 (2004) 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. S.E. Chick, S. Soorapanth and J.S. Koopman, Microbial risk assessment for drinking water, in: Operations Research and Health Care: A Handbook of Methods and Applications, eds. M. Brandeau, F. Sainfort and W. Pierskalla (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  20. World Health Organization, Screening for various cancers (2003), www.who.int/cancer/detection/breastcancer/en/, retrieved on 17 May 2004.

  21. M. Moss, Spotting breast cancer: Doctors are weak link, NY Times (2002).

  22. Mammography Quality Standards Act regulations, FDA Website (2002), www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/frmamcom2.html#s90012, retrieved on 8 May 2004.

  23. A. Kan, I. Olivotto, L.W. Burhenne, E. Sickles and A. Coldman, Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening programme, Radiology 215 (2000) 563–567.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J.G. Elmore, D.L. Miglioretti, L.M. Reisch, M.B. Barton, W. Kreuter, C.L. Christiansen and S. Fletcher, Screening mammograms by community radiologists: Variability in false-positive rates, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94 (2002) 1373–1380.

    Google Scholar 

  25. K. Engelman, D.B. Hawley, R. Gazaway, M.C. Mosier, J.S. Ahluwalia and E.F. Ellerbeck, Impact of geographic barriers on the utilization of mammograms by older rural women, American Geriatrics Society 50 (2002) 62–68.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Fischman, New-style mammograms detect cancer, So do the old, Either way you wait (2001), nl.newsbank.com/, retrieved on 08 May 2004.

  27. Organized Breast Cancer Screening Programs in Canada: 1997 and 1998 Report (Health Canada, 1998).

  28. P. Thongsuksai, V. Chongsuvivatwong and H. Sriplung, Delay in breast cancer care: A study in Thai women, Medical Care 38 (2000) 108–114.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Montella, A. Crispo, G. Botti, M. De Marco, G. Bellis, G. Fabbrocini, M. Pizzorusso, M. Tamburini and G. Daituo, An assessment of delays in obtaining definitive breast cancer treatment in southern Italy, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 66 (2001) 209–215.

    Google Scholar 

  30. L.S. Caplan, K.J. Helzlsouer, S. Shapiro, L.S. Freedman, R.J. Coates and B.K. Edwards, System delay in breast cancer in whites and blacks, American Journal of Epidemiology 142 (1995) 804–812.

    Google Scholar 

  31. L.S. Caplan, K.J. Helzlsouer, S. Shapiro, M.N. Wesley and B.K. Edwards, Reasons for delay in breast cancer diagnosis, Preventive Medicine 25 (1996) 218–224.

    Google Scholar 

  32. M.A. Richards, A.M. Westcombe, S.B. Love, P. Littlejohns and A.J. Ramirez, Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: A systematic review, The Lancet 353 (1999) 1119–1126.

    Google Scholar 

  33. E.H. Kaplan, D.L. Craft and L.M. Wein, Emergency response to a smallpox attack: The case for mass vaccination, PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (2002) 10935–10940.

    Google Scholar 

  34. S.A. Zenios and P.C. Fuloria, Managing the delivery of dialysis therapy: A multiclass fluid model, Management Science 46 (2000) 1317–1336.

    Google Scholar 

  35. X. Su and S.A. Zenios, Allocation of kidneys to autonomous transplant candidates: A sequential stochastic assignment model 2004, submitted to Operations Research.

  36. R.L.A. Kirch and M. Klein, Surveillance schedules for medical examinations, Management Science 20 (1974) 1403–1409.

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. Schwartz, A mathematical model used to analyze breast cancer screening strategies, Operations Research 26 (1978) 937–955.

    Google Scholar 

  38. R. Baker, Use of a mathematical model to evaluate breast cancer screening policy, Health Care Management Science 1 (1998) 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. Voelker and W. Pierskalla, Test selection for a mass screening program, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 27 (1980) 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cancer surveillance on-line (2003), dsol-smed.hc-sc.gc.ca/dsol-smed/cancer/index_e.html, retrieved on 17 May 2004.

  41. W.C. Black, D.A. Haggstrom and H.G. Welch, All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94 (2002) 167–173.

    Google Scholar 

  42. S.D. Walter and N.E. Day, Estimating the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data, American Journal of Epidemiology 118 (1983) 865–886.

    Google Scholar 

  43. C.F. Nodine, H.L. Kundel, C. Mello-Thoms, S.P. Weinstein, S.G. Orel, D.C. Sullivan and E.F. Conant, How experience and training influence mammography expertise, Academic Radiology 6 (1999) 575–585.

    Google Scholar 

  44. C. Beam, E. Conant and E. Sickles, Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography, Academic Radiology 9 (2002) 531–540.

    Google Scholar 

  45. J.G. Elmore, D.L. Miglioretti and A.P. Carney, Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography?, part ii, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95 (2003) 250–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. L. Esserman, H. Cowley, C. Eberle, A. Kirkpatrick, S. Chang, K. Berbaum and A. Gale, Improving the accuracy of mammography: Volume outcome relationship, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94 (2002) 369–375.

    Google Scholar 

  47. P. Salzman, K. Kerlikowske and K. Phillips, Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age, Annals of Internal Medicine 127 (1997) 955–965.

    Google Scholar 

  48. B.H. Fireman, C. Quesenberry, C. Somkin, A. Jacobson, D. Baer, D. West, A. Potosky and M. Brown, Cost of care for cancer in a health maintenance organization, Health Care Financing Review 18 (1997) 51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  49. M.R. Andersen, M. Hager, C. Su and N. Urban, Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of mammography promotion by volunteers in rural communities, Health Education and Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education 29 (2002) 755–770.

    Google Scholar 

  50. R. Saywell, V. Champion, T. Zollinger, M. Maraj, C. Skinner, K. Zoppi and C. Muegge, The cost effectiveness of 5 interventions to increase mammography adherence in a managed care population, The American Journal of Managed Care 9 (2003) 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  51. A.M. Law and W.D. Kelton, Simulation Modeling and Analysis (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  52. P. Heidelberger and P. Welch, Simulation run length control in the presence of an initial transient, Operations Research 31 (1983) 1109–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. National Cancer Institute, NCI statement on mammography screening: 1/31/2002 update, www.nci.nih.gov/newscenter/mammstatement31jan02, retrieved on 6 July 2004.

  54. U.S. General Accounting Office, Mammography capacity generally exists to deliver services, GAO-02-532, Washington, DC (2002).

  55. National Health Service ({UK}), Cancer screening programmes (2002), www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/index.html#how-org, retrieved on 17 May 2004.

  56. C. Haigneré and J.-F. Mattei, Cancer: Une mobilisation nationale, tous ensemble (2003), www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/cancer/index2.htm, retrieved on 17 May 2004.

  57. A.M. Faux, G.M. Lawrence, M.G. Wheaton, C.L. Jeffery and R.K. Griffiths, Slippage in the NHS breast screening programme: An assessment of whether a three year screening round is being achieved, Journal of Medical Screening 5 (1998) 88–91.

    Google Scholar 

  58. U.S. Health Program Office of Technology Assessment, Screening mammography in primary care settings: Implications for cost, access and quality, J. Wagner, study director (1991).

  59. G. Kolata, 50 and ready for a colonoscopy? Doctors say wait is often long, NY Times (2003).

  60. E.A. Sickles, D.E. Wolverton and K.E. Dee, Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: Specialist and general radiologists, Radiology 224 (2002) 861–869.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Canadian cancer statistics, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto, Canada (2003).

  62. W.E. Barlow, C.D. Lehman, Y. Zheng, R. Balard-Barbash, B.C. Yankaskas, G.R. Cutter, P.A. Carney, B.M. Geller, R. Rosenberg, K. Kerlikowske, D.L. Weaver and S. Taplin, Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94 (2002) 1151–1159.

    Google Scholar 

  63. R. Pijnappel, M. van den Donk, R. Holland, W.P. Mali, J.L. Peterse, J.H.C.L. Hendriks and P.H.M. Peeters, Diagnostic accuracy of different strategies of image guided breast intervention in cases of nonpalpable breast lesions, British Journal of Cancer 90 (2004) 595–600.

    Google Scholar 

  64. H.M. Verkooijen, P.H. Peeters, E. Buskens, V.C. Koot, B. Rinkes and T.J. van Vroonhiven, Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpa breast disease: A meta analysis, British Journal of Cancer 82 (2000) 1017–1022.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technology Management Area, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, Boulevard de Constance, 77305, Fontainebleau Cedex, France

    Evrim D. Güneş & Stephen E. Chick

  2. Koç University, İstanbul, Turkey

    O. Zeynep Akşin

Authors
  1. Evrim D. Güneş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen E. Chick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. Zeynep Akşin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evrim D. Güneş.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Güneş, E.D., Chick, S.E. & Akşin, O.Z. Breast Cancer Screening Services: Trade-offs in Quality, Capacity, Outreach, and Centralization. Health Care Manage Sci 7, 291–303 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-004-7538-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-004-7538-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation