1
|
Hendrick RE, Monticciolo DL. USPSTF Recommendations and Overdiagnosis. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2024:wbae028. [PMID: 38865364 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbae028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 06/14/2024]
Abstract
Overdiagnosis is the concept that some cancers detected at screening would never have become clinically apparent during a woman's lifetime in the absence of screening. This could occur if a woman dies of a cause other than breast cancer in the interval between mammographic detection and clinical detection (obligate overdiagnosis) or if a mammographically detected breast cancer fails to progress to clinical presentation. Overdiagnosis cannot be measured directly. Indirect methods of estimating overdiagnosis include use of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate breast cancer mortality, population-based screening studies, or modeling. In each case, estimates of overdiagnosis must consider lead time, breast cancer incidence trends in the absence of screening, and accurate and predictable rates of tumor progression. Failure to do so has led to widely varying estimates of overdiagnosis. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considers overdiagnosis a major harm of mammography screening. Their 2024 report estimated overdiagnosis using summary evaluations of 3 RCTs that did not provide screening to their control groups at the end of the screening period, along with Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network modeling. However, there are major flaws in their evidence sources and modeling estimates, limiting the USPSTF assessment. The most plausible estimates remain those based on observational studies that suggest overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is 10% or less and can be attributed primarily to obligate overdiagnosis and nonprogressive ductal carcinoma in situ.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Edward Hendrick
- Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Trentham-Dietz A, Chapman CH, Jayasekera J, Lowry KP, Heckman-Stoddard BM, Hampton JM, Caswell-Jin JL, Gangnon RE, Lu Y, Huang H, Stein S, Sun L, Gil Quessep EJ, Yang Y, Lu Y, Song J, Muñoz DF, Li Y, Kurian AW, Kerlikowske K, O'Meara ES, Sprague BL, Tosteson ANA, Feuer EJ, Berry D, Plevritis SK, Huang X, de Koning HJ, van Ravesteyn NT, Lee SJ, Alagoz O, Schechter CB, Stout NK, Miglioretti DL, Mandelblatt JS. Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2024; 331:1947-1960. [PMID: 38687505 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.24766] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Abstract
Importance The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison
| | - Christina Hunter Chapman
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Center for Innovations in Quality, Safety, and Effectiveness, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Jinani Jayasekera
- Health Equity and Decision Sciences (HEADS) Research Laboratory, Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | | | - Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - John M Hampton
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison
| | | | - Ronald E Gangnon
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison
| | - Ying Lu
- Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Hui Huang
- Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sarah Stein
- Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Liyang Sun
- Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | | | | | - Yifan Lu
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison
| | - Juhee Song
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | | | - Yisheng Li
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Allison W Kurian
- Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Karla Kerlikowske
- Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco
| | - Ellen S O'Meara
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | | | - Anna N A Tosteson
- Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Departments of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire
| | - Eric J Feuer
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Donald Berry
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Sylvia K Plevritis
- Departments of Biomedical Data Science and Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Xuelin Huang
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | | | | | - Sandra J Lee
- Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison
| | | | - Natasha K Stout
- Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Diana L Miglioretti
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Departments of Oncology and Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Institute for Cancer and Aging Research at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Caswell-Jin JL, Sun LP, Munoz D, Lu Y, Li Y, Huang H, Hampton JM, Song J, Jayasekera J, Schechter C, Alagoz O, Stout NK, Trentham-Dietz A, Lee SJ, Huang X, Mandelblatt JS, Berry DA, Kurian AW, Plevritis SK. Analysis of Breast Cancer Mortality in the US-1975 to 2019. JAMA 2024; 331:233-241. [PMID: 38227031 PMCID: PMC10792466 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.25881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2023] [Accepted: 11/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/17/2024]
Abstract
Importance Breast cancer mortality in the US declined between 1975 and 2019. The association of changes in metastatic breast cancer treatment with improved breast cancer mortality is unclear. Objective To simulate the relative associations of breast cancer screening, treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and treatment of metastatic breast cancer with improved breast cancer mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants Using aggregated observational and clinical trial data on the dissemination and effects of screening and treatment, 4 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models simulated US breast cancer mortality rates. Death due to breast cancer, overall and by estrogen receptor and ERBB2 (formerly HER2) status, among women aged 30 to 79 years in the US from 1975 to 2019 was simulated. Exposures Screening mammography, treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures Model-estimated age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rate associated with screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment relative to the absence of these exposures was assessed, as was model-estimated median survival after breast cancer metastatic recurrence. Results The breast cancer mortality rate in the US (age adjusted) was 48/100 000 women in 1975 and 27/100 000 women in 2019. In 2019, the combination of screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment was associated with a 58% reduction (model range, 55%-61%) in breast cancer mortality. Of this reduction, 29% (model range, 19%-33%) was associated with treatment of metastatic breast cancer, 47% (model range, 35%-60%) with treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and 25% (model range, 21%-33%) with mammography screening. Based on simulations, the greatest change in survival after metastatic recurrence occurred between 2000 and 2019, from 1.9 years (model range, 1.0-2.7 years) to 3.2 years (model range, 2.0-4.9 years). Median survival for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2-positive breast cancer improved by 2.5 years (model range, 2.0-3.4 years), whereas median survival for ER-/ERBB2- breast cancer improved by 0.5 years (model range, 0.3-0.8 years). Conclusions and Relevance According to 4 simulation models, breast cancer screening and treatment in 2019 were associated with a 58% reduction in US breast cancer mortality compared with interventions in 1975. Simulations suggested that treatment for stage I to III breast cancer was associated with approximately 47% of the mortality reduction, whereas treatment for metastatic breast cancer was associated with 29% of the reduction and screening with 25% of the reduction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Liyang P. Sun
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Diego Munoz
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Ying Lu
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Yisheng Li
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | | | - John M. Hampton
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison
| | - Juhee Song
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Jinani Jayasekera
- Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Clyde Schechter
- Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison
| | - Natasha K. Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison
| | - Sandra J. Lee
- Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Data Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Xuelin Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Jeanne S. Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
- Georgetown-Lombardi Institute for Cancer and Aging, Washington, DC
| | - Donald A. Berry
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Allison W. Kurian
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Sylvia K. Plevritis
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Poelhekken K, Lin Y, Greuter MJW, van der Vegt B, Dorrius M, de Bock GH. The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in simulation models: A systematic review. Breast 2023; 71:74-81. [PMID: 37541171 PMCID: PMC10412870 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2023] [Revised: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/06/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Assumptions on the natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are necessary to accurately model it and estimate overdiagnosis. To improve current estimates of overdiagnosis (0-91%), the purpose of this review was to identify and analyse assumptions made in modelling studies on the natural history of DCIS in women. METHODS A systematic review of English full-text articles using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted up to February 6, 2023. Eligibility and all assessments were done independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias and quality assessments were performed. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Reader agreement was quantified with Cohen's kappa. Data extraction was performed with three forms on study characteristics, model assessment, and tumour progression. RESULTS Thirty models were distinguished. The most important assumptions regarding the natural history of DCIS were addition of non-progressive DCIS of 20-100%, classification of DCIS into three grades, where high grade DCIS had an increased chance of progression to invasive breast cancer (IBC), and regression possibilities of 1-4%, depending on age and grade. Other identified risk factors of progression of DCIS to IBC were younger age, birth cohort, larger tumour size, and individual risk. CONCLUSION To accurately model the natural history of DCIS, aspects to consider are DCIS grades, non-progressive DCIS (9-80%), regression from DCIS to no cancer (below 10%), and use of well-established risk factors for progression probabilities (age). Improved knowledge on key factors to consider when studying DCIS can improve estimates of overdiagnosis and optimization of screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keris Poelhekken
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, P.O. Box 30 001, FA40, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Department of Radiology, PO Box 30.001, EB44, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
| | - Yixuan Lin
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, P.O. Box 30 001, FA40, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Marcel J W Greuter
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Department of Radiology, PO Box 30.001, EB44, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Bert van der Vegt
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, PO Box 30.001, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Monique Dorrius
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Department of Radiology, PO Box 30.001, EB44, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Geertruida H de Bock
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, P.O. Box 30 001, FA40, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC). Br J Cancer 2022; 126:673-688. [PMID: 34837076 PMCID: PMC8854566 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01521-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2020] [Revised: 06/20/2021] [Accepted: 07/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. CONCLUSIONS In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.
Collapse
|
6
|
Liu J, Liu Y. Motivation Research on the Content Creation Behaviour of Young Adults in Anxiety Disorder Online Communities. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021; 18:9187. [PMID: 34501774 PMCID: PMC8431271 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18179187] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2021] [Revised: 08/27/2021] [Accepted: 08/28/2021] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
With the advancements in science and technology and the improvement of medical care, mental health problems are receiving increasing attention. Increasing numbers of children, adolescents, and young adults are susceptible to anxiety. This paper assesses young adults based on self-determination theory and the theory of planned behaviour to determine the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and mediating variables behind young adults' content creation behaviour within anxiety disorder online communities (ADOCs). In addition, the paper introduces empathy as a moderating variable, builds a model of the content creation behavioural motivation of young adults, studies the motivation behind young adults' content creation behaviour in ADOCs, and determines the moderating effect of empathy on young adults' content creation behaviour. The research data were obtained using a questionnaire survey, and the SmartPLS structural equation model was used for empirical analysis. The study found that expressing one's anxiety was the most obvious motivation, the content creation intention of young adults significantly positively affected their content creation behaviour, perceived enjoyment motivation had a significant negative influence on young adults' intention to create content, reward motivation had no significant influence on the content creation intention of young adults, other motivations had significant positive influences on young adults' content creation intention, and empathy only had a significant negative moderating effect on the relationship between self-efficacy and young adults' content creation intention. This study not only enriches and expands research on motivation theory but also has practical significance for the improvement and active development of ADOCs.
Collapse
|
7
|
Leung K, Wu JT, Wong IOL, Shu XO, Zheng W, Wen W, Khoo US, Ngan R, Kwong A, Leung GM. Using Risk Stratification to Optimize Mammography Screening in Chinese Women. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2021; 5:pkab060. [PMID: 34377936 PMCID: PMC8346705 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkab060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2021] [Revised: 03/30/2021] [Accepted: 04/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening among Chinese women remains contentious. Here, we characterized breast cancer (BC) epidemiology in Hong Kong and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of personalized risk-based screening. Methods We used the Hong Kong Breast Cancer Study (a case-control study with 3501 cases and 3610 controls) and Hong Kong Cancer Registry to develop a risk stratification model based on well-documented risk factors. We used the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study to validate the model. We considered risk-based programs with different screening age ranges and risk thresholds under which women were eligible to join if their remaining BC risk at the starting age exceeded the threshold. Results The lifetime risk (15-99 years) of BC ranged from 1.8% to 26.6% with a mean of 6.8%. Biennial screening was most cost-effective when the starting age was 44 years, and screening from age 44 to 69 years would reduce breast cancer mortality by 25.4% (95% credible interval [CrI] = 20.5%-29.4%) for all risk strata. If the risk threshold for this screening program was 8.4% (the average remaining BC risk among US women at their recommended starting age of 50 years), the coverage was 25.8%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$18 151 (95% CrI = $10 408-$27 663) per quality-of-life-year (QALY) compared with no screening. The ICER of universal screening was $34 953 (95% CrI = $22 820-$50 268) and $48 303 (95% CrI = $32 210-$68 000) per QALY compared with no screening and risk-based screening with 8.4% threshold, respectively. Conclusion Organized BC screening in Chinese women should commence as risk-based programs. Outcome data (e.g., QALY loss because of false-positive mammograms) should be systemically collected for optimizing the risk threshold.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathy Leung
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
- Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H), Hong Kong Science Park, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Joseph T Wu
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
- Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H), Hong Kong Science Park, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Irene Oi-ling Wong
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - Xiao-Ou Shu
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, and Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Wei Zheng
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, and Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Wanqing Wen
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, and Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Ui-Soon Khoo
- Department of Pathology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - Roger Ngan
- Department of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - Ava Kwong
- Department of Surgery, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - Gabriel M Leung
- Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
- Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D24H), Hong Kong Science Park, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Trentham-Dietz A, Alagoz O, Chapman C, Huang X, Jayasekera J, van Ravesteyn NT, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, Yeh JM, Plevritis SK, Mandelblatt JS. Reflecting on 20 years of breast cancer modeling in CISNET: Recommendations for future cancer systems modeling efforts. PLoS Comput Biol 2021; 17:e1009020. [PMID: 34138842 PMCID: PMC8211268 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Since 2000, the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling teams have developed and applied microsimulation and statistical models of breast cancer. Here, we illustrate the use of collaborative breast cancer multilevel systems modeling in CISNET to demonstrate the flexibility of systems modeling to address important clinical and policy-relevant questions. Challenges and opportunities of future systems modeling are also summarized. The 6 CISNET breast cancer models embody the key features of systems modeling by incorporating numerous data sources and reflecting tumor, person, and health system factors that change over time and interact to affect the burden of breast cancer. Multidisciplinary modeling teams have explored alternative representations of breast cancer to reveal insights into breast cancer natural history, including the role of overdiagnosis and race differences in tumor characteristics. The models have been used to compare strategies for improving the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening based on personal risk factors, including age, breast density, polygenic risk, and history of Down syndrome or a history of childhood cancer. The models have also provided evidence to support the delivery of care by simulating outcomes following clinical decisions about breast cancer treatment and estimating the relative impact of screening and treatment on the United States population. The insights provided by the CISNET breast cancer multilevel modeling efforts have informed policy and clinical guidelines. The 20 years of CISNET modeling experience has highlighted opportunities and challenges to expanding the impact of systems modeling. Moving forward, CISNET research will continue to use systems modeling to address cancer control issues, including modeling structural inequities affecting racial disparities in the burden of breast cancer. Future work will also leverage the lessons from team science, expand resource sharing, and foster the careers of early stage modeling scientists to ensure the sustainability of these efforts. Since 2000, our research teams have used computer models of breast cancer to address important clinical and policy-relevant questions as part of the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). Our 6 CISNET breast cancer models embody the key features of systems modeling by incorporating numerous data sources and reflecting tumor, person, and health system factors that change over time and interact to represent the burden of breast cancer. We have used our models to investigate questions related to breast cancer biology, compare strategies to improve the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography, and support insights into the delivery of care by modeling outcomes following clinical decisions about breast cancer treatment. Moving forward, our research will continue to use systems modeling to address issues related to reducing the burden of breast cancer including modeling structural inequities affecting racial disparities. Our future work will also leverage lessons from engaging multidisciplinary scientific teams, expand efforts to share modeling resources with other researchers, and foster the careers of early stage modeling scientists to ensure the sustainability of these efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America
| | - Christina Chapman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
| | - Xuelin Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Jinani Jayasekera
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | | | - Sandra J. Lee
- Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Clyde B. Schechter
- Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States of America
| | - Jennifer M. Yeh
- Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Sylvia K. Plevritis
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America
| | - Jeanne S. Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, United States of America
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Seigneurin A, Exbrayat C, Molinié F, Croisier L, Poncet F, Berquet K, Delafosse P, Colonna M. Association of Mammography Screening With a Reduction in Breast Cancer Mortality: A Modeling Study Using Population-Based Data From 2 French Departments. Am J Epidemiol 2021; 190:827-835. [PMID: 33043362 DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwaa218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2020] [Revised: 10/01/2020] [Accepted: 10/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that started from 1963 to 1991 reported a decrease of breast cancer mortality, associated with mammography screening. However, the effectiveness of population-based screening programs conducted currently might have changed due to the higher effectiveness of treatments for late-stage cancers and the better diagnostic performance of mammography. The main objective of this study was to predict the reduction of breast cancer mortality associated with mammography screening in the current French setting. We compared breast cancer mortality in 2 simulated cohorts of women, which differed from each other solely in a 70% biennial participation in screening from 50 to 74 years old. The microsimulation model used for predictions was calibrated with incidence rates of breast cancer according to stage that were observed in Isère and Loire-Atlantique departments, France, in 2007-2013. The model predicted a decrease of breast cancer mortality associated with mammography screening of 18% (95% CI: 5, 31) and 17% (95% CI: 3, 29) for models calibrated with data from Isère and Loire-Atlantique departments, respectively. Our results highlight the interest in biennial mammography screening from ages 50 to 74 years old to decrease breast cancer mortality in the current setting, despite improvements in treatment effectiveness.
Collapse
|
10
|
Jayasekera J, Li Y, Schechter CB, Jagsi R, Song J, White J, Luta G, Chapman JAW, Feuer EJ, Zellars RC, Stout N, Julian TB, Whelan T, Huang X, Shelley Hwang E, Hopkins JO, Sparano JA, Anderson SJ, Fyles AW, Gray R, Sauerbrei W, Mandelblatt J, Berry DA. Simulation Modeling of Cancer Clinical Trials: Application to Omitting Radiotherapy in Low-risk Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019; 110:1360-1369. [PMID: 29718314 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djy059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2017] [Accepted: 03/06/2018] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background We used two models to simulate a proposed noninferiority trial of radiotherapy (RT) omission in low-risk invasive breast cancer to illustrate how modeling could be used to predict the trial's outcomes, inform trial design, and contribute to practice debates. Methods The proposed trial was a prospective randomized trial of no-RT vs RT in women age 40 to 74 years undergoing lumpectomy and endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I breast cancer with an Oncotype DX score of 18 or lower. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free interval (RFI), including locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer death. Noninferiority required the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the RFI hazard ratio (HR) for no-RT vs RT to be entirely below 1.7. Model inputs included published data. The trial was simulated 1000 times, and results were summarized as percent concluding noninferiority and mean (standard deviation) of hazard ratios for Model GE and Model M, respectively. Results Noninferiority was demonstrated in 18.0% and 3.7% for the two models. The respective means (SD) of the RFI hazard ratios were 1.8 (0.7) and 2.4 (0.9); most were locoregional recurrences. The mean five-year RFI rates for no-RT vs RT (SD) were 92.7% (2.9%) vs 95.5% (2.2%) and 88.4% (2.0%) vs 94.5% (1.6%). Both models showed little or no difference in breast cancer-specific or overall survival. Alternative definitions of low risk based on combinations of age and grade produced similar results. Conclusions The proposed trial was unlikely to show noninferiority of omitting radiotherapy even using alternative definitions of low-risk, as the endpoint included local recurrence. Future trials regarding radiotherapy should address absolute reduction in recurrence and impact of type of recurrence on the patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinani Jayasekera
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Yisheng Li
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Clyde B Schechter
- Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health and Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Juhee Song
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Julia White
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH
| | - George Luta
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | | | - Eric J Feuer
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Richard C Zellars
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Natasha Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Thomas B Julian
- NRG Oncology, and the Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Timothy Whelan
- McMaster University and Hamilton Heath Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Xuelin Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - E Shelley Hwang
- Department of Surgery, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical School, Chapel Hill, NC
| | | | - Joseph A Sparano
- Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health and Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
| | - Stewart J Anderson
- NRG Oncology, and the Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Anthony W Fyles
- Cancer Clinical Research Unit, University of Toronto Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Robert Gray
- Department of Biostatistics at Harvard University and Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Willi Sauerbrei
- Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Jeanne Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Donald A Berry
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Prado da Fonseca E, Cristina do Amaral R, Carlos Pereira A, Martins Rocha C, Tennant M. Geographical Variation in Oral and Oropharynx Cancer Mortality in Brazil: A Bayesian Approach. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2018; 15:ijerph15122641. [PMID: 30477281 PMCID: PMC6313328 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15122641] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2018] [Revised: 09/03/2018] [Accepted: 09/07/2018] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Recent studies have shown a high number of deaths from oral and oropharyngeal cancer worldwide, Brazil included. For this study, the deaths data (ICD-10, chapter II, categories C00 to C14) was obtained from Mortality Information System (SIM) and standardized by gender and population for each of the 554 Microregions of Brazil. The raw mortality rates were adopted as the standard and compared to the application of smoothing by the Bayesian model. In order to describe the geographical pattern of the occurrence of oral cancer, thematic maps were constructed, based on the distributions of mortality rates for Microregions and gender. Results: There were 7882 deaths registered due to oral and oropharyngeal cancer in Brazil, of which 6291 (79.81%) were male and 1591 (20.19%) female. The Empirical Bayesian Model presented greater scattering with mosaic appearance throughout the country, depicting high rates in Southeast and South regions interpolated with geographic voids of low rates in Midwest and North regions. For males, it was possible to identify expressive clusters in the Southeast and South regions. Conclusion: The Empirical Bayesian Model allowed an alternative interpretation of the oral and oropharynx cancer mortality mapping in Brazil.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Antonio Carlos Pereira
- Department of Community Dentistry, Preventive Dentistry and Public Health area of Piracicaba Dental School, FOP/UNICAMP, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo 13414-903, Brazil.
| | - Carla Martins Rocha
- International Research Collaborative-Oral Health Equity Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Perth 6907, Australia.
| | - Marc Tennant
- International Research Collaborative-Oral Health Equity Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Perth 6907, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Alagoz O, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Feuer EJ, Lee SJ, Plevritis SK, Schechter CB, Stout NK, Trentham-Dietz A, Mandelblatt JS. Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:3S-8S. [PMID: 29554472 PMCID: PMC5862043 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x17737507] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Working Group is a consortium of National Cancer Institute-sponsored investigators who use statistical and simulation modeling to evaluate the impact of cancer control interventions on long-term population-level breast cancer outcomes such as incidence and mortality and to determine the impact of different breast cancer control strategies. The CISNET breast cancer models have been continuously funded since 2000. The models have gone through several updates since their inception to reflect advances in the understanding of the molecular basis of breast cancer, changes in the prevalence of common risk factors, and improvements in therapy and early detection technology. This article provides an overview and history of the CISNET breast cancer models, provides an overview of the major changes in the model inputs over time, and presents examples for how CISNET breast cancer models have been used for policy evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Donald A Berry
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eric J Feuer
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sandra J Lee
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School and Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Sylvia K Plevritis
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Clyde B Schechter
- Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Natasha K Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
van Ravesteyn NT, van den Broek JJ, Li X, Weedon-Fekjær H, Schechter CB, Alagoz O, Huang X, Weaver DL, Burnside ES, Punglia RS, de Koning HJ, Lee SJ. Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:126S-139S. [PMID: 29554463 PMCID: PMC5862063 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x17729358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be a precursor to invasive breast cancer. Since the advent of screening mammography in the 1980's, the incidence of DCIS has increased dramatically. The value of screen detection and treatment of DCIS, however, is a matter of controversy, as it is unclear the extent to which detection and treatment of DCIS prevents invasive disease and reduces breast cancer mortality. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of existing Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modelling Network (CISNET) modeling approaches for the natural history of DCIS, and to compare these to other modeling approaches reported in the literature. DESIGN Five of the 6 CISNET models currently include DCIS. Most models assume that some, but not all, lesions progress to invasive cancer. The natural history of DCIS cannot be directly observed and the CISNET models differ in their assumptions and in the data sources used to estimate the DCIS model parameters. RESULTS These model differences translate into variation in outcomes, such as the amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, with estimates ranging from 34% to 72% for biennial screening from ages 50 to 74 y. The other models described in the literature also report a large range in outcomes, with progression rates varying from 20% to 91%. LIMITATIONS DCIS grade was not yet included in the CISNET models. CONCLUSION In the future, DCIS data by grade from active surveillance trials, the development of predictive markers of progression probability, and evidence from other screening modalities, such as tomosynthesis, may be used to inform and improve the models' representation of DCIS, and might lead to convergence of the model estimates. Until then, the CISNET model results consistently show a considerable amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, supporting the safety and value of observational trials for low-risk DCIS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jeroen J van den Broek
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Xiaoxue Li
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Harald Weedon-Fekjær
- Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Research Support Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Clyde B Schechter
- Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Xuelin Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Donald L Weaver
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Elizabeth S Burnside
- Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Rinaa S Punglia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sandra J Lee
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
van den Broek JJ, van Ravesteyn NT, Mandelblatt JS, Huang H, Ergun MA, Burnside ES, Xu C, Li Y, Alagoz O, Lee SJ, Stout NK, Song J, Trentham-Dietz A, Plevritis SK, Moss SM, de Koning HJ. Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:140S-150S. [PMID: 29554468 PMCID: PMC5862071 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x17718168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The UK Age trial compared annual mammography screening of women ages 40 to 49 years with no screening and found a statistically significant breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up but not at the 17-year follow-up. The objective of this study was to compare the observed Age trial results with the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer model predicted results. METHODS Five established CISNET breast cancer models used data on population demographics, screening attendance, and mammography performance from the Age trial together with extant natural history parameters to project breast cancer incidence and mortality in the control and intervention arm of the trial. RESULTS The models closely reproduced the effect of annual screening from ages 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence. Restricted to breast cancer deaths originating from cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase, the models estimated an average 15% (range across models, 13% to 17%) breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up compared with 25% (95% CI, 3% to 42%) observed in the trial. At the 17-year follow-up, the models predicted 13% (range, 10% to 17%) reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with the non-significant 12% (95% CI, -4% to 26%) in the trial. CONCLUSIONS The models underestimated the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality at the 10-year follow-up. Overall, the models captured the observed long-term effect of screening from age 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence and mortality in the UK Age trial, suggesting that the model structures, input parameters, and assumptions about breast cancer natural history are reasonable for estimating the impact of screening on mortality in this age group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington DC, USA
| | - Hui Huang
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Mehmet Ali Ergun
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Elizabeth S Burnside
- Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Cong Xu
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Yisheng Li
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Sandra J Lee
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Natasha K Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Juhee Song
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Sylvia K Plevritis
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Sue M Moss
- Department of cancer prevention, Wolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
van den Broek JJ, van Ravesteyn NT, Mandelblatt JS, Cevik M, Schechter CB, Lee SJ, Huang H, Li Y, Munoz DF, Plevritis SK, de Koning HJ, Stout NK, van Ballegooijen M. Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Models Using the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction Methodology. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:112S-125S. [PMID: 29554471 PMCID: PMC5862068 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x17743244] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Collaborative modeling has been used to estimate the impact of potential cancer screening strategies worldwide. A necessary step in the interpretation of collaborative cancer screening model results is to understand how model structure and model assumptions influence cancer incidence and mortality predictions. In this study, we examined the relative contributions of the pre-clinical duration of breast cancer, the sensitivity of screening, and the improvement in prognosis associated with treatment of screen-detected cases to the breast cancer incidence and mortality predictions of 5 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models. METHODS To tease out the impact of model structure and assumptions on model predictions, the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction (MCLIR) method compares changes in the number of breast cancers diagnosed due to clinical symptoms and cancer mortality between 4 simplified scenarios: 1) no-screening; 2) one-time perfect screening exam, which detects all existing cancers and perfect treatment (i.e., cure) of all screen-detected cancers; 3) one-time digital mammogram and perfect treatment of all screen-detected cancers; and 4) one-time digital mammogram and current guideline-concordant treatment of all screen-detected cancers. RESULTS The 5 models predicted a large range in maximum clinical incidence (19% to 71%) and in breast cancer mortality reduction (33% to 67%) from a one-time perfect screening test and perfect treatment. In this perfect scenario, the models with assumptions of tumor inception before it is first detectable by mammography predicted substantially higher incidence and mortality reductions than models with assumptions of tumor onset at the start of a cancer's screen-detectable phase. The range across models in breast cancer clinical incidence (11% to 24%) and mortality reduction (8% to 18%) from a one-time digital mammogram at age 62 y with observed sensitivity and current guideline-concordant treatment was considerably smaller than achievable under perfect conditions. CONCLUSIONS The timing of tumor inception and its effect on the length of the pre-clinical phase of breast cancer had a substantial impact on the grouping of models based on their predictions for clinical incidence and breast cancer mortality reduction. This key finding about the timing of tumor inception will be included in future CISNET breast analyses to enhance model transparency. The MCLIR approach should aid in the interpretation of variations in model results and could be adopted in other disease screening settings to enhance model transparency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Mucahit Cevik
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA
| | - Clyde B Schechter
- Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Sandra J Lee
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Hui Huang
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Yisheng Li
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Diego F Munoz
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Sylvia K Plevritis
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Natasha K Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Mandelblatt JS, Near AM, Miglioretti DL, Munoz D, Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A, Gangnon R, Kurian AW, Weedon-Fekjaer H, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK. Common Model Inputs Used in CISNET Collaborative Breast Cancer Modeling. Med Decis Making 2018; 38:9S-23S. [PMID: 29554466 PMCID: PMC5862072 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x17700624] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since their inception in 2000, the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) breast cancer models have collaborated to use a nationally representative core of common input parameters to represent key components of breast cancer control in each model. Employment of common inputs permits greater ability to compare model output than when each model begins with different input parameters. The use of common inputs also enhances inferences about the results, and provides a range of reasonable results based on variations in model structure, assumptions, and methods of use of the input values. The common input data are updated for each analysis to ensure that they reflect the most current practice and knowledge about breast cancer. The common core of parameters includes population rates of births and deaths; age- and cohort-specific temporal rates of breast cancer incidence in the absence of screening and treatment; effects of risk factors on incidence trends; dissemination of plain film and digital mammography; screening test performance characteristics; stage or size distribution of screen-, interval-, and clinically- detected tumors by age; the joint distribution of ER/HER2 by age and stage; survival in the absence of screening and treatment by stage and molecular subtype; age-, stage-, and molecular subtype-specific therapy; dissemination and effectiveness of therapies over time; and competing non-breast cancer mortality. METHOD AND RESULTS In this paper, we summarize the methods and results for the common input values presently used in the CISNET breast cancer models, note assumptions made because of unobservable phenomena and/or unavailable data, and highlight plans for the development of future parameters. CONCLUSION These data are intended to enhance the transparency of the breast CISNET models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Aimee M Near
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Diana L Miglioretti
- Department of Public Health Sciences, UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California, USA and Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA and Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Diego Munoz
- Departments of Biomedical Informatics and Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Brian L Sprague
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Ronald Gangnon
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics and Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Allison W Kurian
- Departments of Medicine and Health Research & Policy, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Harald Weedon-Fekjaer
- Oslo Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology [OCBE], Research Support Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Kathleen A Cronin
- Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Sylvia K Plevritis
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Plevritis SK, Munoz D, Kurian AW, Stout NK, Alagoz O, Near AM, Lee SJ, van den Broek JJ, Huang X, Schechter CB, Sprague BL, Song J, de Koning HJ, Trentham-Dietz A, van Ravesteyn NT, Gangnon R, Chandler Y, Li Y, Xu C, Ergun MA, Huang H, Berry DA, Mandelblatt JS. Association of Screening and Treatment With Breast Cancer Mortality by Molecular Subtype in US Women, 2000-2012. JAMA 2018; 319:154-164. [PMID: 29318276 PMCID: PMC5833658 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.19130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 188] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Given recent advances in screening mammography and adjuvant therapy (treatment), quantifying their separate and combined effects on US breast cancer mortality reductions by molecular subtype could guide future decisions to reduce disease burden. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the contributions associated with screening and treatment to breast cancer mortality reductions by molecular subtype based on estrogen-receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2, formerly HER2 or HER2/neu). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) models simulated US breast cancer mortality from 2000 to 2012 using national data on plain-film and digital mammography patterns and performance, dissemination and efficacy of ER/ERBB2-specific treatment, and competing mortality. Multiple US birth cohorts were simulated. EXPOSURES Screening mammography and treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The models compared age-adjusted, overall, and ER/ERBB2-specific breast cancer mortality rates from 2000 to 2012 for women aged 30 to 79 years relative to the estimated mortality rate in the absence of screening and treatment (baseline rate); mortality reductions were apportioned to screening and treatment. RESULTS In 2000, the estimated reduction in overall breast cancer mortality rate was 37% (model range, 27%-42%) relative to the estimated baseline rate in 2000 of 64 deaths (model range, 56-73) per 100 000 women: 44% (model range, 35%-60%) of this reduction was associated with screening and 56% (model range, 40%-65%) with treatment. In 2012, the estimated reduction in overall breast cancer mortality rate was 49% (model range, 39%-58%) relative to the estimated baseline rate in 2012 of 63 deaths (model range, 54-73) per 100 000 women: 37% (model range, 26%-51%) of this reduction was associated with screening and 63% (model range, 49%-74%) with treatment. Of the 63% associated with treatment, 31% (model range, 22%-37%) was associated with chemotherapy, 27% (model range, 18%-36%) with hormone therapy, and 4% (model range, 1%-6%) with trastuzumab. The estimated relative contributions associated with screening vs treatment varied by molecular subtype: for ER+/ERBB2-, 36% (model range, 24%-50%) vs 64% (model range, 50%-76%); for ER+/ERBB2+, 31% (model range, 23%-41%) vs 69% (model range, 59%-77%); for ER-/ERBB2+, 40% (model range, 34%-47%) vs 60% (model range, 53%-66%); and for ER-/ERBB2-, 48% (model range, 38%-57%) vs 52% (model range, 44%-62%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this simulation modeling study that projected trends in breast cancer mortality rates among US women, decreases in overall breast cancer mortality from 2000 to 2012 were associated with advances in screening and in adjuvant therapy, although the associations varied by breast cancer molecular subtype.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sylvia K. Plevritis
- Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Data Science, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Diego Munoz
- Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Data Science, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Allison W. Kurian
- Departments of Medicine and Health Research and Policy, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Natasha K. Stout
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison
| | - Aimee M. Near
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Sandra J. Lee
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jeroen J. van den Broek
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Xuelin Huang
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Clyde B. Schechter
- Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
| | - Brian L. Sprague
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington
| | - Juhee Song
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Harry J. de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Ronald Gangnon
- Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics and Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health
| | - Young Chandler
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | - Yisheng Li
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Cong Xu
- Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Data Science, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Mehmet Ali Ergun
- Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison
| | - Hui Huang
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Donald A. Berry
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Jeanne S. Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| |
Collapse
|