Volume 6, Issue 1 (1-2022)
EBHPME 2022, 6(1): 71-79 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Pakdaman M, Dehghan H, Ziadpoor H, Abolhasanizade F, Namayandeh S M. Assessment of Tools to Diagnose Cancer in Patients with Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review. EBHPME 2022; 6 (1) :71-79
URL: http://jebhpme.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-312-en.html
URL: http://jebhpme.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-312-en.html
Mohsen Pakdaman 
, Hamidreza Dehghan , Habibeh Ziadpoor * , Firoozeh Abolhasanizade , Seyedeh Mahdieh Namayandeh
, Hamidreza Dehghan , Habibeh Ziadpoor * , Firoozeh Abolhasanizade , Seyedeh Mahdieh Namayandeh
Research Center of Prevention and Epidemiology of Non Communicable Disease, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran , rhziadpoor@gmail.com
Abstract: (1850 Views)
Background: Breast cancer is an uncontrolled and unnatural proliferation of cells in different breast tissues. The first measure to diagnose breast cancer is an examination by a surgeon followed by mammography, sonography, sampling, and other diagnosing methods. Given that there are several methods to diagnose breast cancer, and most of them are quite expensive, the present systematic review compares the expenses and effectiveness of different methods to diagnose breast cancer.
Methods: The study was carried out as a systematic review through searching databases, i.e., PubMed, Web of Science, Magiran, Scopus, and Embase for articles published from March 1999 to May 31, 2017. The research articles regarding health technology assessment and economic assessment (n = 8) were examined.
Results: Generally, conducting MRI screening and digital mammography every six months after the age of 30 are proved to be the most efficient and economical methods to screen carriers of BRCA (BReast CAncer) mutated genes. Besides, implementing both the techniques simultaneously was more cost-efficient with BRCA1 compared to BRCA2. Some studies have revealed that genetic tests and Oncotype tests, in particular, were the most cost-efficient methods to diagnose the disease, especially in its early stages.
Conclusion: Consequently, indexing gene expression in individuals with BRCA gene mutation is revealed to more cost-efficient.
Methods: The study was carried out as a systematic review through searching databases, i.e., PubMed, Web of Science, Magiran, Scopus, and Embase for articles published from March 1999 to May 31, 2017. The research articles regarding health technology assessment and economic assessment (n = 8) were examined.
Results: Generally, conducting MRI screening and digital mammography every six months after the age of 30 are proved to be the most efficient and economical methods to screen carriers of BRCA (BReast CAncer) mutated genes. Besides, implementing both the techniques simultaneously was more cost-efficient with BRCA1 compared to BRCA2. Some studies have revealed that genetic tests and Oncotype tests, in particular, were the most cost-efficient methods to diagnose the disease, especially in its early stages.
Conclusion: Consequently, indexing gene expression in individuals with BRCA gene mutation is revealed to more cost-efficient.
Keywords: BRCA1/2 gene, Breast cancer, Breast cancer diagnosis, Gene expression indexing technology, Cost-effectiveness
Type of Study: Review Article |
Subject:
Health Economics
Received: 2020/09/8 | Accepted: 2022/01/30 | Published: 2022/03/29
Received: 2020/09/8 | Accepted: 2022/01/30 | Published: 2022/03/29
References
1. Sadock BJ, Sadock VA. Kaplan and sadock's synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral sciences/ clinical psychiatry: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.11nd ed. Lippincott williams & wilkins publishers; 2014. p. 1224-5.
2. Jalali Nadoushan M, Davati A, Tavakoli Far A. Evaluation of gen expression status in primary breast cancer and its relation to some prognostic factors. J Mazandaran Univ MedSci. 2007; 17(58): 30-6. [In Persian]
3. Iranian ministry of health, deputy for health directory, CDC, cancer office. national cancer registry report 2006 - 2007. 3rd ed. Tehran: Center for Disease Control Publication; 2007. p. 27-9. [In Persian]
4. Martinez D, Berka RM, Henrissat B, Saloheimo M, Arvas M, Baker SE, et al. Genome sequencing and analysis of the biomass-degrading fungus trichoderma reesei (syn. hypocrea jecorina). Nature Biotechnology. 2008; 26(5): 553-60. [DOI:10.1038/nbt1403]
5. Golmohammadi R, Pejhan A. Gene experison of cell proliferative marker Ki67 in breast cancer. J Gorgan Uni Med Sci. 2011; 13(3): 65-71. [In Persian]
6. Farivar Sh, Khakpoor L. Micro RNAs and breast cancer. Enetics in the 3rd Millennium. 2013; 10(4): 2913-21. [In Persian]
7. Shamsalinia A, Tavakoli Far A, Jalali Nadoushan MR. MExpression of Bcl-2 gene in primary breast cancer and its correlation with some prognostic factors. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2007: 17(58): 30-6. [In Persian]
8. Mastrigt Gh, Hiligsmann M, Arts JJ, Broos PH, Kleijnen J, Evers SM, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: A five-step approach (part 1/3). Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2016; 16(6): 689-704. [DOI:10.1080/14737167.2016.1246960]
9. Folse HJ, Green LE, Kress A, Allman R, Dinh TA. Cost-effectiveness of a genetic test for breast cancer risk. Cancer Prevention Research. 2013; 6(12): 1328-36. [DOI:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0056]
10. De Bock GH, Vermeulen KM, Jansen L, Oosterwijk JC, Siesling S, Dorrius MD, et al. Which screening strategy should be offered to women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations? A simulation of comparative cost-effectiveness. British Journal of Cancer. 2013; 108(8): 1579-86. [DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.149]
11. Heimdal K, Maehle L, Møller P. Costs and benefits of diagnosing familial breast cancer. Disease Markers. 2004; 15(1-3): l67-73. [DOI:10.1155/1999/751892]
12. Eccleston A, Bentley A, Dyer M, Strydom A, Vereecken W, George A, et al. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in UK women with ovarian cancer. Value in Health. 2017; 20(4): 567-76. [DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2017.01.004]
13. Cott Chubiz JE, Lee JM, Gilmore ME, Kong, ChY, Lowry KP, Halpern, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Cancer. 2013; 119(6): 1266-76. [DOI:10.1002/cncr.27864]
14. Holland ML, Huston A, Noyes K. Cost-effectiveness of testing or breast cancer susceptibility genes. University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. 2009; 12(2): 207-16. [DOI:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00418.x]
15. Katz G, Romano O, Fao C, Vataire A-L, Chantelard J-V, Hervé R, et al. Economic impact of gene expression profiling in patients with early-stage breast cancer in France. PLOS ONE. 2015; 10(6): e0128880. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0128880]
16. Miguel AS, Carlos C, Cortés, Lluch A, Brosa M, Becerra V, et al. Genomic profile of breast cancer: Cost-effectiveness analysis from the Spanish national healthcare system perspective. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2014; 14(6): 889-99. [DOI:10.1586/14737167.2014.957185]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
