You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Decision science and cervical cancer

  1. Scott B. Cantor Ph.D.1,
  2. Marianne C. Fahs Ph.D., M.P.H.2,
  3. Jeanne S. Mandelblatt M.D., M.P.H.3,
  4. Evan R. Myers M.D., M.P.H.4,
  5. Gillian D. Sanders Ph.D.5

Article first published online: 22 OCT 2003

DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11680

Issue

Cancer

Cancer

Special Issue: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Cervical Cancer

Supplement: Second International Conference on Cervical Cancer

Volume 98, Issue Supplement S9, pages 2003–2008, 1 November 2003

Additional Information

How to Cite

Cantor, S. B., Fahs, M. C., Mandelblatt, J. S., Myers, E. R. and Sanders, G. D. (2003), Decision science and cervical cancer. Cancer, 98: 2003–2008. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11680

Author Information

  1. 1

    Section of Health Services Research, Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

  2. 2

    Health Policy Research Center, Milano Graduate School, New School University, New York, New York

  3. 3

    Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C

  4. 4

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

  5. 5

    Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Medical Information Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 22 OCT 2003
  2. Article first published online: 22 OCT 2003
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 25 MAR 2003
  4. Manuscript Revised: 19 MAR 2003
  5. Manuscript Received: 31 OCT 2002

Funded by

  • National Cancer Institute. Grant Numbers: R01-CA72908-02, P01-CA82710
  • Stanford Cancer Council
  • V Foundation. Grant Number: 1JVD608
  • National Institute on Aging. Grant Number: R01-AG15340

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (98K)

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Mandelblatt JS, Fahs MC. The cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for low income elderly women. JAMA. 1988; 259: 2409–2413.
  • 2
    Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 113: 214–226.
  • 3
    Fahs MC, Mandelblatt JS, Schechter C, Muller C. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 117: 520–527.
  • 4
    Fahs MC, Plichta SB, Mandelblatt JS. Cost-effective policies for cervical cancer screening. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996; 9: 211–230.
  • 5
    Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA. 1999; 281: 347–353.
  • 6
    Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC, Kuntz KM, Freedberg KA. The costs, clinical benefits, and cost effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 130: 97–107.
  • 7
    McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology: evidence report/technology assessment No. 5 (prepared by Duke University under contract no. 290-97-0014). Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999; Pub. No. 99-E010.
  • 8
    Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA. 2001; 285: 3107–3115.
  • 9
    Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2382–2390.
  • 10
    Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, et al. Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2372–2381.
  • 11
    Cantor SB, Mitchell MF, Tortolero-Luna G, Bratka CS, Bodurka DC, Richards-Kortum R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnosis and management of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 270–277.
  • 12
    Cantor SB. Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance and ethics: a quantitative assessment. Med Decis Making. 1994; 14: 259–265.
  • 13
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PK. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J. 1992; 146: 473–481.
  • 14
    Nease RF, Owens DK. A method for estimating the cost-effectiveness of incorporating patient preferences into practice guidelines. Med Decis Making. 1994; 14: 382–392.
  • 15
    Kassirer JP, Pauker SG. The toss-up. N Engl J Med. 1981; 305: 1467–1469.
  • 16
    Sanders GD, Taira AV. Cost-effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerging Infect Dis. 2003; 9: 37–48.
  • 17
    Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993; 13: 322–338.
  • 18
    Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE, Lipscomb J. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: GoldMR, SiegelJE, RussellLB, WeinsteinMC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 176–203.
  • 19
    Cantor SB, Levy LB, Basen-Engquist K, Le T, Follen M. Time costs in the screening and diagnosis of cervical cancer. Med Decis Making. 2002; 22: 557.
  • 20
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996; 276: 1253–1258.
  • 21
    Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. For the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 1996; 276: 1339–1341.
  • 22
    Fahs MC, Mandelblatt JS. Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening among elderly low-income women. In: Goldbloom, R, LawrenceR, editors. Preventing disease: beyond the rhetoric. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990: 441–446.
  • 23
    Kielhorn A, Graf von der Schulenburg J-M. The health economics handbook. Chester: Adis International Limited, 2000.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (98K)