Skip to content

The cost effectiveness of preselection for non-invasive pre-assessment of women referred to full hospital assessment on the basis of a positive screening examination for breast cancer, compared to the current practice.

The cost effectiveness of preselection for non-invasive pre-assessment of women referred to full hospital assessment on the basis of a positive screening examination for breast cancer, compared to the current practice. - MASS (Modified Assessment of referred women in Service Screening)

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
NL-OMON
Registry ID
NL-OMON32713
Enrollment
4568
Registered
2009-06-25
Start date
2009-10-23
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2024-05-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Borstkanker breast cancer Mamma carcinoma

Interventions

Women who are randomized into the intervention group that are assessed with a BI-RADS code 4 or 5 (suspicious for malignancy) will directly be referred to full hospital assessment, as in current scr
or virtually exclude this possibility (downgrade to BI-RADS 1, 2), in which case the woman will be classified as *definite benign* and go home reassured.

Sponsors

Universitair Medisch Centrum Sint Radboud
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 99 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: All women referred to hospital on basis of a positive screening mammography.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Women who don*t understand the Dutch language, as well as women who are in a state of diminished responsibility or mentally disabled. they are not able to fill in the questionnaire and will not understand the information provided by the research assistant. They are therefore excluded.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The main outcome parameter is the negative predictive value of preselection, which is interrelated to secondary outcome parameters such as hospital referral rate, detection rate, false-positive rate and the ultimate outcome survival (estimated through a microsimulation model).

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Additional outcome parameters are quality of life, anxiety, satisfaction, productivity losses, patient time costs and volumes of care. The cost-effectiveness analysis will estimate the cost per QALY gained and cost per percentage increase in satisfaction with screening, or, if effects differ, the incremental cost per QALY gained as the long run modelling outcome.

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP)