Quality of Life Research

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 801–814 | Cite as

Quality of life valuations of mammography screening

  • Amy E. Bonomi
  • Denise M. Boudreau
  • Paul A. Fishman
  • Evette Ludman
  • Amy Mohelnitzky
  • Elizabeth A. Cannon
  • Deb Seger


Objective To obtain quality-of-life (QOL) valuations associated with mammography screening and breast cancer treatment that are suitable for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Methods Subjects comprised 131 women (age range 50–79 years) randomly sampled from a breast cancer screening program. In an in-person or telephone interview, women rated the QOL impact of 14 clinical scenarios (ranging from mammography to end-of-life care for breast cancer) using a visual analogue scale anchored by death (0) and perfect health/quality of life (100).

Results Women rated the scenarios describing true negative results, false positive results, and routine screening mammography at 80 or above on a scale of 0–100, suggesting that they perceive these states as being close to perfect health. They rated adjuvant chemotherapy (39.7; range 10–90), palliation/end-of-life care (35.8; range 0–100), and recurrence at 1 year (33.0; range 0–95) the lowest, suggesting that these health states are perceived as compromised. Women rated receiving news of a breast cancer diagnosis (true positive) (45.7; range 5–100) and receiving delayed news of a breast cancer diagnosis (false negative) (48.5; range 5–100) as being comparable to undergoing mastectomy (48.3; range 10–100) and radiation therapy (46.2; range 5–100) for breast cancer.

Conclusions These data can be used to update cost analyses of mammography screening that wish to take into account the QOL impact of screening.


Breast cancer screening Cost-effectiveness Mammography Quality of life Valuations 



The authors thank Philip Bonomi, MD, MS (Rush Cancer Institute, Chicago, IL), Marlene Frost, PhD, RN (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN), and William Hollingworth, PhD (University of Washington, Seattle, WA) for reviewing the clinical scenarios, and Terry Bush, PhD, Cassandra Luce, MA, and Christine Mahoney, MA for scheduling and conducting interviews with women.

NIH Funding

This manuscript was developed under NCI/R01 CA106790: Long-term cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.


  1. 1.
    Tabar, L., Fagerberg, C. J., Gad, A., Baldetorp, L., Holmberg, L. H., Grontoft, O. et al. (1985). Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet, 1, 829–832. doi 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92204-4:.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tabar, L., Yen, M. F., Vitak, B., Chen, H. H., Smith, R. A., & Duffy, S. W. (2003). Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet, 361, 1405–1410. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13143-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taplin, S. H., Thompson, R. S., Schnitzer, F., Anderman, C., & Immanuel, V. (1990). Revisions in the risk-based Breast Cancer Screening Program at Group Health Cooperative. Cancer, 66, 812–818. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900815)66:4≤812::AID-CNCR2820660436≥3.0.CO;2-1.
  4. 4.
    Taplin, S. H., Ichikawa, L., Buist, D. S., Seger, D., & White, E. (2004). Evaluating organized breast cancer screening implementation: The prevention of late-stage disease? Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 13, 225–234. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-03-0206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rimer, B. K., & Bluman, L. G. (1997). The psychosocial consequences of mammography. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 131–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brett, J., Bankhead, C., Henderson, B., Watson, E., & Austoker, J. (2005). The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psycho-oncology, 14, 917–938. doi: 10.1002/pon.904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christiansen, C. L., Wang, F., Barton, M. B., Kreuter, W., Elmore, J. G., Gelfand, A. E. et al. (2000). Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 92, 1657–1666. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.20.1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lampic, C., Thurfjell, E., Bergh, J., & Sjoden, P. O. (2001). Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening. European Journal of Cancer, 37, 463–469. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00426-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drossaert, C. H., Boer, H., & Seydel, E. R. (2001). Does mammographic screening and a negative result affect attitudes towards future breast screening? Journal of Medical Screening, 8, 204–212. doi: 10.1136/jms.8.4.204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gram, I. T., Lund, E., & Slenker, S. E. (1990). Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. British Journal of Cancer, 62, 1018–1022.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutton, S., Saidi, G., Bickler, G. & Hunter J. (1995). Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three-wave prospective study in England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 49, 413–418.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Sox, H. C., Fischhoff, B., & Welch, H. G. (2000). US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: Cross-sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 320, 1635–1640. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7250.1635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fairclough, D. L., Fetting, J. H., Cella, D., Wonson, W., & Moinpour, C. M. (1999). Quality of life and quality adjusted survival for breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant therapy. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Quality of Life Research, 8, 723–731. doi: 10.1023/A:1008806828316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ganz, P. A., Kwan, L., Stanton, A. L., Krupnick, J. L., Rowland, J. H., Meyerowitz, B. E. et al. (2004). Quality of life at the end of primary treatment of breast cancer: First results from the moving beyond cancer randomized trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96, 376–387.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ganz, P. A. (2001). Impact of tamoxifen adjuvant therapy on symptoms, functioning, and quality of life. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 30, 130–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ganz, P. A., Rowland, J. H., Desmond, K., Meyerowitz, B. E., & Wyatt, G. E. (1998). Life after breast cancer: Understanding women’s health-related quality of life and sexual functioning. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 501–514.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ganz, P. A., Rowland, J. H., Meyerowitz, B. E., & Desmond, K. A. (1998). Impact of different adjuvant therapy strategies on quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung, 152, 396–411.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goss, P. E., Ingle, J. N., Martino, S., Robert, N. J., Muss, H. B., Piccart, M. J. et al. (2003). A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 1793–1802. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa032312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kramer, J. A., Curran, D., Piccart, M., de Haes, J. C., Bruning, P. F., Klijn, J. G. et al. (2000). Randomised trial of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: Quality of life evaluation using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Rotterdam symptom checklist. European Journal of Cancer, 36, 1488–1497. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00134-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kristensen, B., Ejlertsen, B., Groenvold, M., Hein, S., Loft, H., & Mouridsen, H. T. (1999). Oral clodronate in breast cancer patients with bone metastases: A randomized study. Journal of Internal Medicine, 246, 67–74. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.1999.00507.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lerman, C., Trock, B., Rimer, B. K., Boyce, A., Jepson, C., & Engstrom, P. F. (1991). Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Annals of Internal Medicine, 114, 657–661.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pandya, K. J., Raubertas, R. F., Flynn, P. J., Hynes, H. E., Rosenbluth, R. J., Kirshner, J. J. et al. (2000). Oral clonidine in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer experiencing tamoxifen-induced hot flashes: A University of Rochester Cancer Center Community Clinical Oncology Program study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 132, 788–793.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rowland, J. H., Desmond, K. A., Meyerowitz, B. E., Belin, T. R., Wyatt, G. E., & Ganz, P. A. (2000). Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92, 1422–1429. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.17.1422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Joensuu, H., Holli, K., Heikkinen, M., Suonio, E., Aro, A. R., Hietanen, P. et al. (1998). Combination chemotherapy versus single-agent therapy as first- and second-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer: A prospective randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 3720–3730.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Curran, D., van Dongen, J. P., Aaronson, N. K., Kiebert, G., Fentiman, I. S., Mignolet, F. et al. (1998). Quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with radical mastectomy or breast-conserving procedures: Results of EORTC Trial 10801. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Breast Cancer Co-operative Group (BCCG). European Journal of Cancer, 34, 307–314. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(97)00312-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stewart, D. J., Evans, W. K., Shepherd, F. A., Wilson, K. S., Pritchard, K. I., Trudeau, M. E. et al. (1997). Cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil combined with mitoxantrone versus doxorubicin for breast cancer: Superiority of doxorubicin. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15, 1897–1905.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Haes, J. C., de Koning, H. J., van Oortmarssen, G. J., van Agt, H. M., de Bruyn, A. E., & van Der Maas, P. J. (1991). The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. International Journal of Cancer, 49, 538–544. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910490411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Koning, H. J., van Ineveld, B. M., van Oortmarssen, G. J., de Haes, J. C., Collette, H. J., Hendriks, J. H. et al. (1991). Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. International Journal of Cancer, 49, 531–537. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910490410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2001). Analyzing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Economics, 10, 617–634. doi: 10.1002/hec.622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hall, J., Gerard, K., Salkeld, G., & Richardson, J. (1992). A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 34, 993–1004. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90130-I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnston, K., Brown, J., Gerard, K., O’Hanlon, M., & Morton, A. (1998). Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Social Science & Medicine, 47, 213–222. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00065-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chie, W. C., Huang, C. S., Chen, J. H., & Chang, K. J. (2000). Utility assessment for different clinical phases of breast cancer in Taiwan. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association =Taiwan yi zhi, 99, 677–683.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stout, N. K., Rosenberg, M. A., Trentham-Dietz, A., Smith, M. A., Robinson, S. M., & Fryback, D. G. (2006). Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 98, 774–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jansen, S. J., Kievit, J., Nooij, M. A., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2001). Stability of patients’ preferences for chemotherapy: The impact of experience. Medical Decision Making, 21, 295–306. doi: 10.1177/02729890122062596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jansen, S. J., Stiggelbout, A. M., Wakker, P. P., Nooij, M. A., Noordijk, E. M., & Kievit, J. (2000). Unstable preferences: A shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Medical Decision Making, 20, 62–71. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taplin, S. H., Barlow, W. E., Ludman, E., MacLehos, R., Meyer, D. M., Seger, D. et al. (2000). Testing reminder and motivational telephone calls to increase screening mammography: A randomized study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92, 233–242. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fishman, P. A., Boudreau, D. M., Bonomi, A. E. et al. (2007). Long term outcomes of a trial to increase mammographic breast cancer screening (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Breen, N., Cronin, K. A., Meissner, H. I., Taplin, S. H., Tangka, F. K., Tiro, J. A. et al. (2007). Reported drop in mammography : Is this cause for concern? Cancer, 109, 2405–2409. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    U. S. Census Bureau (unknown). Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/5363000.htm. Accessed 11 April 2007.
  40. 40.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (unknown). Available at: http://www.nccn.org/patients/patient_gls/_english/_breast/contents.asp. Accessed xx, xxxx.
  41. 41.
    Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5, 1–30. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lloyd, A., Nafees, B., Narewska, J., Dewilde, S., & Watkins, J. (2006). Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 95, 683–690. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    U.S. Department of Health Statistics. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cullen, J., Schwartz, M. D., Lawrence, W. F., Selby, J. V., & Mandelblatt, J. S. (2004). Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 943–952. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guidelines for breast cancer screening. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm. Accessed xx, xxxx.
  46. 46.
    American College of Preventive Medicine. Screening mammography for breast cancer: American College of Preventive Medicine practice policy statement. Available at: http://www.acpm.org/breast.htm. Accessed xx, xxxx.
  47. 47.
    Stalmeier, P. F., Goldstein, M. K., Holmes, A. M., Lenert, L., Miyamoto, J., Stiggelbout, A. M. et al. (2001). What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment? Medical Decision Making, 21, 200–207. doi: 10.1177/02729890122062497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schleinitz, M. D., DePalo, D., Blume, J., & Stein, M. (2006). Can differences in breast cancer utilities explain disparities in breast cancer care? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 1253–1260. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00609.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stiggelbout, A. M., Eijkemans, M. J., Kiebert, G. M., Kievit, J., Leer, J. W., & De Haes, H. J. (1996). The ‘utility’ of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Is it an alternative to the time trade-off? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12, 291–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bennett, K. J., & Torrance, G. W. (1996). Measuring health state preferences and utilities: Rating scale, time trade-off and standard gamble techniques. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics of clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 253–265). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy E. Bonomi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Denise M. Boudreau
    • 2
  • Paul A. Fishman
    • 2
  • Evette Ludman
    • 2
  • Amy Mohelnitzky
    • 2
  • Elizabeth A. Cannon
    • 1
  • Deb Seger
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Development and Family ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health StudiesGroup Health CooperativeSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations