This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lafata, J. E. Articles by Johnson, C. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lafata, J. E. Articles by Johnson, C. C.

The Economic Impact of False-Positive Cancer Screens

¹ Center for Health Services Research, ² Josephine Ford Cancer Center, and ³ Department of Biostatistics and Research Epidemiology, Henry Ford Medical Group, Detroit, Michigan

Requests for reprints: Jennifer Elston Lafata, Center for Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, 1 Ford Place, 3A, Detroit, MI 48202. Phone: 313-874-5454; Fax: 313-874-1883. E-mail: jlafata1{at}hfhs.or

Objective: Despite the promotion and widespread use of routine cancer screening, little is known about the economic consequences of false-positive screening results. We evaluated the medical and nonmedical costs associated with false-positive prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screens.

Method: We identified 1,087 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial participants enrolled in a large managed care organization. Medical care use and costs were compiled from automated sources and trial data. Nonmedical care costs to patients with a false-positive lung cancer screen were obtained by telephone interview (n = 98).

Results: Forty-three percent of the study sample incurred at least one false-positive cancer screen. The majority of these patients (83%) received follow-up care. Prior to and after controlling for participant characteristics, significantly higher medical care expenditures in the year following screening were found among those with a false-positive screen. The adjusted mean difference was $1,024 for women and $1,171 for men. Among lung cancer screening patients, few nonmedical care costs were identified beyond the time (mean, 1.5 hours) spent receiving care.

Conclusion: The results here indicate that false-positive results among some available cancer screening tests are relatively common, that patients incurring a false-positive screen tend to receive follow-up testing, and that such follow-up is not without associated medical costs. Along with trials evaluating the health benefits of available cancer screening modalities, investigations into potential undesirable consequences of cancer screening are also warranted.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. T. Brewer, T. Salz, and S. E. Lillie Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms Ann Intern Med, April 3, 2007; 146(7): 502 - 510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Berlin Errors of Omission Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2005; 185(6): 1416 - 1421. [Full Text] [PDF]