• 1
    Cancer Registry of Slovenia. Epidemiology and Cancer Registry. Slovenia: Institute of Oncology Ljubljana.
  • 2
    Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders M, et al. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol 1998;27:73542.
  • 3
    Habbema JD, Van Oortmarssen GJ, Lubbe JT, Van Der Maas PJ. The MISCAN simulation program for the evaluation of screening for disease. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1985;20:7993.
  • 4
    Van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD, Van Der Maas PJ, et al. A model for breast cancer screening. Cancer 1990;66:160112.
  • 5
    Szeto KL, Devlin NJ. The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand. Health Policy 1996;38:10115.
  • 6
    Lippman ME. Breast cancer. In: KasperDL, ed. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (16th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Medical Publishing Division, 2005.
  • 7
    Yen MF, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:174654.
  • 8
    Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993;13:32238.
  • 9
    Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:397409.
  • 10
    SAS OnlineDoc, version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 1999. Available from:[Accessed December 17, 2004].
  • 11
    Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:15968.
  • 12
    Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003;6:917.
  • 13
    Pompe-Kirn V, Japelj B, Primic-Žakelj M, et al. Which risk factors could have affected breast cancer incidence in Slovenia in the past, and what are the predictions for this decade. Zdrav Vestn 2001;70:3415.
  • 14
    Burstein HJ, Polyak K, Wong JS, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med 2004;350:143041.
  • 15
    Cady B, Chung MA. The prevention of invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101:214751.
  • 16
    Paci E, Duffy SW. Modelling the analysis of breast cancer screening programmes: sensitivity, lead time and predictive value in the Florence District Programme (1975–1986). Int J Epidemiol 1991;20:8528.
  • 17
    Duffy SW, Chen HH, Tabar L, et al. Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40–49. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:113945.
  • 18
    Brekelmans CT, Westers P, Faber JA, et al. Age specific sensitivity and sojourn time in a breast cancer screening programme (DOM) in the Netherlands: a comparison of different methods. Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:6871.
  • 19
    Michaelson JS, Halpern E, Kopans DB. Breast cancer: computer simulation method for estimating optimal intervals for screening. Radiology 1999;212:55160.
  • 20
    Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, et al. A simple model of breast carcinoma growth may provide explanations for observations of apparently complex phenomena. Cancer 2003;97:29519.
  • 21
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA 1996;276:3943.
  • 22
    Perry N, Broeders M, DeWolfC, Tornberg S. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening. Luxemburg: Office For Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001.
  • 23
    Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003;290:212937.
  • 24
    De Haes JC, De Koning HJ, Van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. Int J Cancer 1991;49:53844.
  • 25
    Hutton J, Brown R, Borowitz M, et al. A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9(Suppl. 2):S822.
  • 26
    Manning WG, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In:GoldMR, SiegelJE, RusselLB, et al., eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • 27
    Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:479500.
  • 28
    Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998;18(Suppl. 2):S6880.
  • 29
    Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1999;8:25761.
  • 30
    Fenwick E, Claxton K, Schulper M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:77987.
  • 31
    Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancerscreening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:14169.
  • 32
    Drummond FM. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  • 33
    Karlsson G, Johannesson M. The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9:11320.
  • 34
    Sculpher M, Claxton K, Akehurst R. It's just evaluation for decision-making: recent developments in, and challenges for, cost-effectiveness research. In: SmithP, SculpherM, GinnellyL, eds. Health Policy and Economics: Opportunities and Challenges. London: McGraw-Hill Education, 2004.
  • 35
    Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004;7:51828.
  • 36
    Towse A, Pritchard C. Does NICE have a threshold? An external view. In: TowseA, PritchardC, DevlinN, eds. Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds. Economic and Ethical Issues. London: King's Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002.
  • 37
    Brown DW, French MT, Schweitzer ME, et al. Economic evaluation of breast cancer screening: a review. Cancer Pract 1999;7:2833.
  • 38
    Arveux P, Wait S, Schaffer P. Building a model to determine the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in France. Eur J Cancer Care 2003;12:14353.
  • 39
    De Koning HJ, Van Ineveld BM, Van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int J Cancer 1991;49:5317.