1
|
Hoeve HLJ, Goedegebure A, Carr G, Davis A, Mackey AR, Bussé AML, Uhlén IM, Qirjazi B, Kik J, Simonsz HJ, Heijnsdijk EAM. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of a newborn hearing screening programme; usability and pitfalls. Int J Audiol 2024; 63:235-241. [PMID: 36799623 DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2023.2177892] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2022] [Revised: 01/26/2023] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The EUSCREEN project concerns the study of European vision and hearing screening programmes. Part of the project was the development of a cost-effectiveness model to analyse such programmes. We describe the development and usability of an online tool to enable stakeholders to design, analyse or modify a newborn hearing screening (NHS) programme. DESIGN Data from literature, from existing NHS programmes, and observations by users were used to develop and refine the tool. Required inputs include prevalence of the hearing impairment, test sequence and its timing, attendance, sensitivity, and specificity of each screening step. Outputs include the number of cases detected and the costs of screening and diagnostics. STUDY SAMPLE Eleven NHS programmes with reliable data. RESULTS Three analyses are presented, exploring the effect of low attendance, number of screening steps, testing in the maternity ward, or screening at a later age, on the benefits and costs of the programme. Knowledge of the epidemiology of a staged screening programme is crucial when using the tool. CONCLUSIONS This study presents a tool intended to aid stakeholders to design a new or analyse an existing hearing screening programme in terms of benefits and costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans L J Hoeve
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André Goedegebure
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gwen Carr
- Independent Consultant in Early Hearing Detection and Intervention, Ribble Valley, UK
| | - Adrian Davis
- Vision and Eye Research Unit, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Andrea M L Bussé
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Birkena Qirjazi
- Department of Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases - Ophthalmology, University of Medicine of Tirana, Tirana, Albania
| | - Jan Kik
- Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Huibert J Simonsz
- Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yang Z, Heijnsdijk EAM, Newcomb LF, Rizopoulos D, Erler NS. Exploring the relation of active surveillance schedules and prostate cancer mortality. Cancer Med 2024; 13:e6977. [PMID: 38491826 PMCID: PMC10943374 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6977] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2023] [Revised: 01/11/2024] [Accepted: 01/18/2024] [Indexed: 03/18/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Active surveillance (AS), where treatment is deferred until cancer progression is detected by a biopsy, is acknowledged as a way to reduce overtreatment in prostate cancer. However, a consensus on the frequency of taking biopsies while in AS is lacking. In former studies to optimize biopsy schedules, the delay in progression detection was taken as an evaluation indicator and believed to be associated with the long-term outcome, prostate cancer mortality. Nevertheless, this relation was never investigated in empirical data. Here, we use simulated data from a microsimulation model to fill this knowledge gap. METHODS In this study, the established MIcrosimulation SCreening Analysis model was extended with functionality to simulate the AS procedures. The biopsy sensitivity in the model was calibrated on the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study (PASS) data, and four (tri-yearly, bi-yearly, PASS, and yearly) AS programs were simulated. The relation between detection delay and prostate cancer mortality was investigated by Cox models. RESULTS The biopsy sensitivity of progression detection was found to be 50%. The Cox models show a positive relation between a longer detection delay and a higher risk of prostate cancer death. A 2-year delay resulted in a prostate cancer death risk of 2.46%-2.69% 5 years after progression detection and a 10-year risk of 5.75%-5.91%. A 4-year delay led to an approximately 8% greater 5-year risk and an approximately 25% greater 10-year risk. CONCLUSION The detection delay is confirmed as a surrogate for prostate cancer mortality. A cut-off for a "safe" detection delay could not be identified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhenwei Yang
- Department of BiostatisticsErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamthe Netherlands
- Department of EpidemiologyErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamthe Netherlands
| | | | - Lisa F. Newcomb
- Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer CenterSeattleWashingtonUSA
| | - Dimitris Rizopoulos
- Department of BiostatisticsErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamthe Netherlands
- Department of EpidemiologyErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamthe Netherlands
| | - Nicole S. Erler
- Department of BiostatisticsErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamthe Netherlands
- Department of EpidemiologyErasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamthe Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Irzaldy A, Gvamichava R, Beruchashvili T, Sturua L, van Ravesteyn NT, de Koning HJ, Heijnsdijk EAM. Breast Cancer Screening in Georgia: Choosing the Most Optimal and Cost-Effective Strategy. Value Health Reg Issues 2024; 39:66-73. [PMID: 37992568 DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2023.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2023] [Revised: 08/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 11/24/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To define the optimal and cost-effective breast cancer screening strategy for Georgia. METHODS We used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Breast (MISCAN-Breast) model that has been adapted to the Georgian situation to evaluate 736 mammography screening strategies varied by interval (biennial and triennial), starting ages (40-60 years), stopping ages (64-84 years), and screening modality (with and without clinical breast examination [CBE]). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional cost (healthcare perspective) compared with no screening per 1000 women were calculated with 3% discount. Major uncertainties (eg, costs) are addressed as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Strategies using a combination of mammography and CBE yielded in substantially higher costs with minimal differences in outcomes compared with mammography-only strategies. The current screening strategy, biennial mammography screening from the age of 40 until 70 years with CBE, is close to the frontier line but requires high additional cost given the QALY gains (€16 218/QALY), well above the willingness-to-pay threshold of €12 720. The optimal strategy in Georgia would be triennial mammography-only screening from age 45 to 66 years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12 507. CONCLUSIONS Biennial screening strategies are resource-intensive strategies and may not be feasible for Georgia. By switching to triennial mammography-only strategy from the age of 45 until 66 years, it is possible to offer screening to more eligible women while still gaining substantial screening benefits. This is to address capacity issues which is a common barrier for many Eastern European countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abyan Irzaldy
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | - Lela Sturua
- Petre Shotadze Tbilisi Medical Academy, Tbilisi, Georgia
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. Wise Prostate-specific Antigen Testing Means a Limited, Risk-adjusted, and Personal Approach. Eur Urol 2023; 84:359-360. [PMID: 37296041 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.05.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2023] [Accepted: 05/17/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zielonke N, Senore C, Ponti A, Csanadi M, de Koning HJ, Heijnsdijk EAM, van Ravesteyn NT. Overcoming barriers: Modelling the effect of potential future changes of organized breast cancer screening in Italy. J Med Screen 2023; 30:134-141. [PMID: 36762395 PMCID: PMC10399099 DOI: 10.1177/09691413231153568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2022] [Revised: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Organized breast cancer screening may not achieve its full potential due to organizational and cultural barriers. In Italy, two identified barriers were low attendance in Southern Italy and, in Italy as a whole, underscreening and overscreening in parts of the eligible population. The objective of this study was to identify potential changes to overcome these barriers and to quantify their costs and effects. METHODS To assess the impact of potential measures to improve breast cancer screening in Italy, we performed an evaluation of costs and effects for increasing adherence for Southern Italy and harmonizing screening intervals (biennial screening) for the whole of Italy, using an online tool (EU-TOPIA evaluation tool) based on the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model. RESULTS Increasing adherence in Southern Italy through investing in mobile screening units has an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio of €9531 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Harmonizing the screening interval by investing in measures to reduce opportunistic screening and simultaneously investing in mobile screening units to reduce underscreening is predicted to gain 1% fewer life-years, while saving 19% of total screening costs compared to the current situation. CONCLUSIONS Increasing adherence in Southern Italy and harmonizing the screening interval could result in substantial improvements at acceptable costs, or in the same benefits at lower costs. This example illustrates a systematic approach that can be easily applied to other European countries, as the online tools can be used by stakeholders to quantify effects and costs of a broad range of specific barriers, and ways to overcome them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Zielonke
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Carlo Senore
- Epidemiology and screening Unit – CPO, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
| | - Antonio Ponti
- Epidemiology and screening Unit – CPO, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
| | | | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kregting LM, van Ravesteyn NT, Chootipongchaivat S, Heijnsdijk EAM, Otten JDM, Broeders MJM, de Koning HJ. Cumulative risks of false positive recall and screen-detected breast cancer after multiple screening examinations. Int J Cancer 2023; 153:312-319. [PMID: 37038266 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34530] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2022] [Revised: 03/10/2023] [Accepted: 03/21/2023] [Indexed: 04/12/2023]
Abstract
Women tend to make a decision about participation in breast cancer screening and adhere to this for future invitations. Therefore, our study aimed to provide high-quality information on cumulative risks of false-positive (FP) recall and screen-detected breast cancer over multiple screening examinations. Individual Dutch screening registry data (2005-2018) were gathered on subsequent screening examinations of 92 902 women age 49 to 51 years in 2005. Survival analyses were used to calculate cumulative risks of a FP and a true-positive (TP) result after seven examinations. Data from 66 472 women age 58 to 59 years were used to extrapolate to 11 examinations. Participation, detection and additional FP rates were calculated for women who previously received FP results compared to women with true negative (TN) results. After 7 examinations, the cumulative risk of a TP result was 3.7% and the cumulative risk of a FP result was 9.1%. After 11 examinations, this increased to 7.1% and 13.5%, respectively. Following a FP result, participation was lower (71%-81%) than following a TN result (>90%). In women with a FP result, more TP results (factor 1.59 [95% CI: 1.44-1.72]), more interval cancers (factor 1.66 [95% CI: 1.41-1.91]) and more FP results (factor 1.96 [95% CI: 1.87-2.05]) were found than in women with TN results. In conclusion, due to a low recall rate in the Netherlands, the cumulative risk of a FP recall is relatively low, while the cumulative risk of a TP result is comparable. Breast cancer diagnoses and FP results were more common in women with FP results than in women with TN results, while participation was lower.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindy M Kregting
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sarocha Chootipongchaivat
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kik J, Heijnsdijk EAM, Mackey AR, Carr G, Horwood AM, Fronius M, Carlton J, Griffiths HJ, Uhlén IM, Simonsz HJ. Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes. J Med Screen 2022; 30:62-68. [PMID: 36205109 PMCID: PMC10149880 DOI: 10.1177/09691413221126677] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe. METHODS The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017-2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire. RESULTS The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Kik
- Department of Ophthalmology, 6993Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, 6993Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Allison R Mackey
- Division of Ear, Nose and Throat Disease, 27106Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gwen Carr
- Independent consultant, Manchester, UK
| | - Anna M Horwood
- School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, 6816University of Reading, Reading, UK
| | - Maria Fronius
- Department of Ophthalmology, 9173Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Jill Carlton
- School of Health and Related Research, 7315University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Helen J Griffiths
- School of Health and Related Research, 7315University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Inger M Uhlén
- Division of Ear, Nose and Throat Disease, 27106Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Huibert Jan Simonsz
- Department of Ophthalmology, 6993Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kregting LM, Olthof EMG, Breekveldt ECH, Aitken CA, Heijnsdijk EAM, Toes-Zoutendijk E, de Koning HJ, van Ravesteyn NT. Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 2022; 175:180-186. [PMID: 36126478 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.08.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2022] [Revised: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 08/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many European countries offer organised population-based breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes. Around age 55 and 60, Dutch women are invited to all three screening programmes. We examined the extent to which participation concurs and identified factors influencing concurrent participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual level data from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening invitations between 2017 and 2019 were extracted from the Dutch screening registry. The percentages of women participating in all three, two, one, or none of the programmes around age 55 and 60, and before subsequent round invitation were determined. Multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to estimate whether population density, socio-economic status (SES) per postal code area, and time between the three invitations (<3, 3-6, >6 months) were associated with concurrent participation. RESULTS Data from 332,484 women were analysed. At age 55, 53.7% participated in all three programmes, 22.1% in two, 11.7% in one, and 12.6% did not participate at all. At age 60, a similar participation pattern was observed. Women living in areas with higher population density were less likely (odds ratios 0.75-0.94) and women in higher SES groups were more likely (odds ratios 1.12-1.60) to participate in more screening programmes, although this positive association was smaller for the highest SES group. No substantial association was found between concurrent participation and timing of invitations. CONCLUSIONS More than half of Dutch women participated in all three screening programmes and around 12% did not participate in any. Concurrent participation was lower in cities and lower SES groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindy M Kregting
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Ellen M G Olthof
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Emilie C H Breekveldt
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Clare A Aitken
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Esther Toes-Zoutendijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, Gulati R, Lange JM, Tsodikov A, Roberts R, Etzioni R. Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Screening Strategies in a Low-Resource, High-risk Population in the Bahamas. JAMA Health Forum 2022; 3:e221116. [PMID: 35977253 PMCID: PMC9123504 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.1116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 03/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Importance The benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening may be greatest in high-risk populations, including men of African descent in the Caribbean. However, organized screening may not be sustainable in low- and middle-income countries. Objective To evaluate the expected population outcomes and resource use of conservative prostate-specific antigen screening programs in the Bahamas. Design Setting and Participants Prostate cancer incidence from GLOBOCAN and prostate-specific antigen screening data for 4300 men from the Bahamas were used to recalibrate 2 decision analytical models previously used to study prostate-specific antigen screening for Black men in the United States. Data on age and results obtained from prostate-specific antigen screening tests performed in Nassau from 2004 to 2018 and in Freeport from 2013 to 2018 were used. Data were analyzed from January 15, 2021, to March 23, 2022. Interventions One or 2 screenings for men aged 45 to 60 years and conservative criteria for biopsy (prostate-specific antigen level >10 ng/mL) and curative treatment (Gleason score ≥8) were modeled. Categories of Gleason scores were 6 or lower, 7, and 8 or higher, with higher scores indicating higher risk of cancer progression and death. Main Outcomes and Measures Projected numbers of tests and biopsies, prostate cancer (over)diagnoses, lives saved, and life-years gained owing to screening from 2022 to 2040. Results In this decision analytical modeling study, screening histories from 4300 men (median age, 54 years; range, 13-101 years) tested between 2004 and 2018 at 2 sites in the Bahamas were used to inform the models. Screening once at 60 years of age was projected to involve 40 000 to 42 000 tests (range between models) and prevent 500 to 600 of 10 000 to 14 000 prostate cancer deaths. Screening at 50 and 60 years doubled the number of tests but increased lives saved by only 15% to 16%. Among onetime strategies, screening once at 60 years of age involved the fewest tests per life saved (74-84 tests) and curative treatments per life saved (1.2-2.8 treatments). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this decision analytical modeling study of prostate cancer screening in the Bahamas suggest that limited screening offered modest benefits that varied with screening ages and number of tests. The results can be combined with data on capacity constraints and evaluated relative to competing national public health priorities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eveline A. M. Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Roman Gulati
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Jane M. Lange
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
- Knight Cancer Institute, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
| | - Alex Tsodikov
- School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Robin Roberts
- University of The West Indies School of Clinical Medicine and Research, Nassau, The Bahamas
| | - Ruth Etzioni
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
- Knight Cancer Institute, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kregting LM, Sankatsing VDV, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ, van Ravesteyn NT. Reply to: Comments on "Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: a cost-effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies.". Int J Cancer 2022; 151:651-652. [PMID: 35460077 PMCID: PMC9324213 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Lindy M Kregting
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Valérie D V Sankatsing
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Geuzinge HA, Bakker MF, Heijnsdijk EAM, van Ravesteyn NT, Veldhuis WB, Pijnappel RM, de Lange SV, Emaus MJ, Mann RM, Monninkhof EM, de Koekkoek-Doll PK, van Gils CH, de Koning HJ. Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening for Women With Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:1476-1483. [PMID: 34585249 PMCID: PMC8562952 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2021] [Revised: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Extremely dense breast tissue is associated with increased breast cancer risk and limited sensitivity of mammography. The DENSE trial showed that additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening in women with extremely dense breasts resulted in a substantial reduction in interval cancers. The cost-effectiveness of MRI screening for these women is unknown. METHODS We used the MISCAN-breast microsimulation model to simulate several screening protocols containing mammography and/or MRI to estimate long-term effects and costs. The model was calibrated using results of the DENSE trial and adjusted to incorporate decreases in breast density with increasing age. Screening strategies varied in the number of MRIs and mammograms offered to women ages 50-75 years. Outcomes were numbers of breast cancers, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), breast cancer deaths, and overdiagnosis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated (3% discounting), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000. RESULTS Calibration resulted in a conservative fit of the model regarding MRI detection. Both strategies of the DENSE trial were dominated (biennial mammography; biennial mammography plus MRI). MRI alone every 4 years was cost-effective with €15 620 per QALY. Screening every 3 years with MRI alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €37 181 per QALY. All strategies with mammography and/or a 2-year interval were dominated because other strategies resulted in more additional QALYs per additional euro. Alternating mammography and MRI every 2 years was close to the efficiency frontier. CONCLUSIONS MRI screening is cost-effective for women with extremely dense breasts, when applied at a 4-year interval. For a willingness to pay more than €22 000 per QALY gained, MRI at a 3-year interval is cost-effective as well.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Amarens Geuzinge
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marije F Bakker
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter B Veldhuis
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ruud M Pijnappel
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Stéphanie V de Lange
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marleen J Emaus
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ritse M Mann
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Evelyn M Monninkhof
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Petra K de Koekkoek-Doll
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Carla H van Gils
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Verkleij ML, Heijnsdijk EAM, Bussé AML, Carr G, Goedegebure A, Mackey AR, Qirjazi B, Uhlén IM, Sloot F, Hoeve HLJ, de Koning HJ. Cost-Effectiveness of Neonatal Hearing Screening Programs: A Micro-Simulation Modeling Analysis. Ear Hear 2021; 42:909-916. [PMID: 33306547 PMCID: PMC8221716 DOI: 10.1097/aud.0000000000000981] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Early detection of neonatal hearing impairment moderates the negative effects on speech and language development. Universal neonatal hearing screening protocols vary in tests used, timing of testing and the number of stages of screening. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of various protocols in the preparation of implementation of neonatal hearing screening in Albania.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mirjam L Verkleij
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Andrea M L Bussé
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gwen Carr
- Independent Consultant in Early Hearing Detection, Intervention and Family Centered Practice, London, United Kingdom
| | - André Goedegebure
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Allison R Mackey
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Birkena Qirjazi
- Department of Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases-Ophthalmology, University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania
| | - Inger M Uhlén
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Frea Sloot
- Department of Ophthalmology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hans L J Hoeve
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Nyame YA, Gulati R, Heijnsdijk EAM, Tsodikov A, Mariotto AB, Gore JL, Etzioni R. The Impact of Intensifying Prostate Cancer Screening in Black Men: A Model-Based Analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:1336-1342. [PMID: 33963850 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2020] [Revised: 02/05/2021] [Accepted: 03/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Black men in the United States have markedly higher rates of prostate cancer than the general population. National guidelines for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening do not provide clear guidance for this high-risk population. The purpose of this study is to estimate the benefit and harm of intensified PSA screening in Black men. METHODS Two microsimulation models of prostate cancer calibrated to incidence from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program among Black men project the impact of different screening strategies (varying screening intervals, starting and stopping ages, and biopsy utilization following an abnormal PSA) on disease-specific mortality and overdiagnosis. Each strategy induces a mean lead time (MLT) for detected cases. A longer MLT reduces mortality according to estimates combining the US and European prostate cancer screening trials but increases overdiagnosis. RESULTS Under historical population screening, Black men had similar MLT to men of all races, and similar mortality reduction (range between models = 21-24% vs. 20-24%) but a higher frequency of overdiagnosis (75-86 vs. 58-60 per 1000 men). Screening Black men aged 40-84 years annually would increase both mortality reduction (29-31%) and overdiagnosis (112-129 per 1000). Restricting screening to age 45-69 years would still achieve substantial mortality reduction (26-29%) with lower overdiagnosis (51-61 per 1000). Increasing biopsy utilization to 100% of abnormal tests would further reduce mortality but substantially increase overdiagnosis. CONCLUSIONS Annual screening in Black men is expected to reduce mortality more than that estimated under historical screening. Limiting screening to men below 70 years is expected to help to reduce overdiagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yaw A Nyame
- Department of Urology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.,Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Roman Gulati
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Alex Tsodikov
- School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Angela B Mariotto
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - John L Gore
- Department of Urology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.,Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Ruth Etzioni
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Gini A, van Ravesteyn NT, Jansen EEL, Heijnsdijk EAM, Senore C, Anttila A, Novak Mlakar D, Veerus P, Csanádi M, Zielonke N, Heinävaara S, Széles G, Segnan N, de Koning HJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. The EU-TOPIA evaluation tool: An online modelling-based tool for informing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening decisions in Europe. Prev Med Rep 2021; 22:101392. [PMID: 34026466 PMCID: PMC8122113 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101392] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2020] [Revised: 03/31/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Aiming to support European countries in improving their breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes, the EU-TOPIA consortium has developed an online user-friendly tool (the EU-TOPIA evaluation tool; https://miscan.eu-topia.org) based on the Microsimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) model. Methods We designed an online platform that allows stakeholders to use their country-specific data (demographic, epidemiological, and cancer screening information) to quantify future harms and benefits of different cancer screening scenarios in their country. Current cancer screening programmes and impacts of potential changes in screening protocols (such as extending target ages or increasing screening attendance) can be simulated. Results are scaled to the country-specific population. To illustrate the tool, we used the tool to simulate two different CRC screening scenarios in the Netherlands: biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in ages 55–75 and colonoscopy every ten years in ages 55–75. Data from the Dutch screening programme was used to inform both scenarios. Results A total of 482,700 CRC cases and 178,000 CRC deaths were estimated in the Netherlands with FIT screening (for individuals aged 40–100 years, 2018–2050), with 47.3 million FITs performed (1.92 million positives of which 1.64 million adhered to diagnostic colonoscopy). With colonoscopy screening, CRC incidence and mortality were, respectively, up to 17% and 14% lower than in the current FIT screening programme, requiring, however, a colonoscopy demand that was 7-fold higher. Conclusions Our study presents an essential online tool for stakeholders and medical societies to quantify estimates of benefits and harms of early cancer detection in Europe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Gini
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Erik E L Jansen
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Carlo Senore
- SC Epidemiology, Screening, Cancer Registry, Città della Salute e della Scienza University Hospital, CPO, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | - Piret Veerus
- National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia
| | | | - Nadine Zielonke
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Nereo Segnan
- SC Epidemiology, Screening, Cancer Registry, Città della Salute e della Scienza University Hospital, CPO, Turin, Italy
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, Lange JM, Mariotto AB, Vickers AJ, Carlsson SV, Etzioni R. Lifetime Benefits and Harms of Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 112:1013-1020. [PMID: 32067047 PMCID: PMC7566340 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2019] [Revised: 12/03/2019] [Accepted: 12/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Studies conducted in Swedish populations have shown that men with lowest prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at ages 44–50 years and 60 years have very low risk of future distant metastasis or death from prostate cancer. This study investigates benefits and harms of screening strategies stratified by PSA levels. Methods PSA levels and diagnosis patterns from two microsimulation models of prostate cancer progression, detection, and mortality were compared against results of the Malmö Preventive Project, which stored serum and tracked subsequent prostate cancer diagnoses for 25 years. The models predicted the harms (tests and overdiagnoses) and benefits (lives saved and life-years gained) of PSA-stratified screening strategies compared with biennial screening from age 45 years to age 69 years. Results Compared with biennial screening for ages 45–69 years, lengthening screening intervals for men with PSA less than 1.0 ng/mL at age 45 years led to 46.8–47.0% fewer tests (range between models), 0.9–2.1% fewer overdiagnoses, and 3.1–3.8% fewer lives saved. Stopping screening when PSA was less than 1.0 ng/mL at age 60 years and older led to 12.8–16.0% fewer tests, 5.0–24.0% fewer overdiagnoses, and 5.0–13.1% fewer lives saved. Differences in model results can be partially explained by differences in assumptions about the link between PSA growth and the risk of disease progression. Conclusion Relative to a biennial screening strategy, PSA-stratified screening strategies investigated in this study substantially reduced the testing burden and modestly reduced overdiagnosis while preserving most lives saved. Further research is needed to clarify the link between PSA growth and disease progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roman Gulati
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Alex Tsodikov
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jane M Lange
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Angela B Mariotto
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Ruth Etzioni
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, Supit SJ, Looijenga LHJ, de Koning HJ. Screening for cancers with a good prognosis: The case of testicular germ cell cancer. Cancer Med 2021; 10:2897-2903. [PMID: 33710779 PMCID: PMC8026933 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3837] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Revised: 02/24/2021] [Accepted: 02/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To determine, using testicular germ cell cancer screening as an example, whether screening can also be effective for cancers with a good prognosis. Methods Based on the Dutch incidence, stage distribution, and survival and mortality data of testicular germ cell cancer, we developed a microsimulation model. This model simulates screening scenarios varying in screening age, interval, self‐examination or screening by the general practitioner (GP), and screening of a defined high‐risk group (cryptorchidism). For each scenario, the number of clinically and screen‐detected cancers by stage, referrals, testicular germ cell cancer deaths, and life‐years gained were projected. Results Annual self‐examination from age 20 to 30 years resulted in 767 cancers detected per 100,000 men followed over life‐time, of which 123 (16%) by screening. In this scenario, 19.2 men died from the disease, 4.7 (20%) less than without screening, and 230 life‐years were gained. Around 14,000 visits to the GP and 2080 visits to an urologist were required. This scenario resulted in the most favorable ratio between extra visits to the GP or urologist and deaths prevented (1418 and 116 respectively). Monthly screening, or screening until age 40 resulted in less favorable ratios. Self‐examination by only the high‐risk population prevented 1.0 death per 100,00 men in the general population. In all scenarios, 46–50 life‐years were gained for each testicular germ cell cancer death prevented. Conclusion Despite the good prognosis, self‐examination at young ages for testicular germ cell cancer could be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Steven J Supit
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Geuzinge HA, Obdeijn IM, Rutgers EJT, Saadatmand S, Mann RM, Oosterwijk JC, Tollenaar RAEM, de Roy van Zuidewijn DBW, Lobbes MBI, van 't Riet M, Hooning MJ, Ausems MGEM, Loo CE, Wesseling J, Luiten EJT, Zonderland HM, Verhoef C, Heijnsdijk EAM, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, de Koning HJ. Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk. JAMA Oncol 2021; 6:1381-1389. [PMID: 32729887 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2922] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
Importance For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce. Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. Design, Setting, and Participants In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied. Interventions Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography). Main Outcomes and Measures Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied. Results This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer. Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Amarens Geuzinge
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Inge-Marie Obdeijn
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Emiel J T Rutgers
- Department of Surgery, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sepideh Saadatmand
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ritse M Mann
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.,Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jan C Oosterwijk
- Department of Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.,Department of Genetics, Groningen University, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Rob A E M Tollenaar
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marc B I Lobbes
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Maartje J Hooning
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Claudette E Loo
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Department of Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Harmien M Zonderland
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Cees Verhoef
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Getaneh AM, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. The comparative effectiveness of mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy vs regular biopsy in a population-based PSA testing: a modeling study. Sci Rep 2021; 11:1801. [PMID: 33469144 PMCID: PMC7815791 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81459-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2020] [Accepted: 01/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
The benefit of prostate cancer screening is counterbalanced by the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The use of a multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) test after a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test followed by magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy (MRIGB) may reduce these harms. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of mpMRI and MRIGB vs the regular screening pathway in a population-based prostate cancer screening setting. A micro-simulation model was used to predict the effects of regular PSA screening (men with elevated PSA followed by TRUSGB) and MRI based screening (men with elevated PSA followed by mpMRI and MRIGB). We predicted reduction of overdiagnosis, harm-benefit ratio (overdiagnosis per cancer death averted), reduction in number of biopsies, detection of clinically significant cancer, prostate cancer death averted, life-years gained (LYG), and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for both strategies. A univariate sensitivity analysis and threshold analysis were performed to assess uncertainty around the test sensitivity parameters used in the MRI strategy.In the MRI pathway, we predicted a 43% reduction in the risk of overdiagnosis, compared to the regular pathway. Similarly a lower harm-benefit ratio (overdiagnosis per cancer death averted) was predicted for this strategy compared to the regular screening pathway (1.0 vs 1.8 respectively). Prostate cancer mortality reduction, LY and QALYs gained were also slightly increased in the MRI pathway than the regular screening pathway. Furthermore, 30% of men with a positive PSA test could avoid a biopsy as compared to the regular screening pathway. Compared to regular PSA screening, the use of mpMRI as a triage test followed by MRIGB can substantially reduce the risk of overdiagnosis and improve the harm-benefit balance, while maximizing prostate cancer mortality reduction and QALYs gained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abraham M Getaneh
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Getaneh AM, Heijnsdijk EAM, Roobol MJ, de Koning HJ. Assessment of harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: A micro-simulation study of 230 scenarios. Cancer Med 2020; 9:7742-7750. [PMID: 32813910 PMCID: PMC7571827 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2020] [Revised: 07/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/31/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Prostate cancer screening incurs a high risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. An organized and age‐targeted screening strategy may reduce the associated harms while retaining or enhancing the benefits. Methods Using a micro‐simulation analysis (MISCAN) model, we assessed the harms, benefits, and cost‐effectiveness of 230 prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies in a Dutch population. Screening strategies were varied by screening start age (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55), stop age (51‐69), and intervals (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and single test). Costs and effects of each screening strategy were compared with a no‐screening scenario. Results The most optimum strategy would be screening with 3‐year intervals at ages 55–64 resulting in an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €19 733 per QALY. This strategy predicted a 27% prostate cancer mortality reduction and 28 life years gained (LYG) per 1000 men; 36% of screen‐detected men were overdiagnosed. Sensitivity analyses did not substantially alter the optimal screening strategy. Conclusions PSA screening beyond age 64 is not cost‐effective and associated with a higher risk of overdiagnosis. Similarly, starting screening before age 55 is not a favored strategy based on our cost‐effectiveness analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abraham M Getaneh
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Zielonke N, Kregting LM, Heijnsdijk EAM, Veerus P, Heinävaara S, McKee M, de Kok IMCM, de Koning HJ, van Ravesteyn NT. The potential of breast cancer screening in Europe. Int J Cancer 2020; 148:406-418. [PMID: 32683673 PMCID: PMC7754503 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33204] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2020] [Revised: 05/18/2020] [Accepted: 06/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Currently, all European countries offer some form of breast cancer screening. Nevertheless, disparities exist in the status of implementation, attendance and the extent of opportunistic screening. As a result, breast cancer screening has not yet reached its full potential. We examined how many breast cancer deaths could be prevented if all European countries would biennially screen all women aged 50 to 69 for breast cancer. We calculated the number of breast cancer deaths already prevented due to screening as well as the number of breast cancer deaths which could be additionally prevented if the total examination coverage (organised plus opportunistic) would reach 100%. The calculations are based on total examination coverage in women aged 50 to 69, the annual number of breast cancer deaths for women aged 50 to 74 and the maximal possible mortality reduction from breast cancer, assuming similar effectiveness of organised and opportunistic screening. The total examination coverage ranged from 49% (East), 62% (West), 64% (North) to 69% (South). Yearly 21 680 breast cancer deaths have already been prevented due to mammography screening. If all countries would reach 100% examination coverage, 12 434 additional breast cancer deaths could be prevented annually, with the biggest potential in Eastern Europe. With maximum coverage, 23% of their breast cancer deaths could be additionally prevented, while in Western Europe it could be 21%, in Southern Europe 15% and in Northern Europe 9%. Our study illustrates that by further optimising screening coverage, the number of breast cancer deaths in Europe can be lowered substantially.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Zielonke
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lindy M Kregting
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Piret Veerus
- National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia
| | | | - Martin McKee
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Inge M C M de Kok
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | -
- The EU-TOPIA collaborators are listed in the Appendix
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Sankatsing VDV, Ravesteyn NT, Heijnsdijk EAM, Broeders MJM, Koning HJ. Risk stratification in breast cancer screening: Cost‐effectiveness and harm‐benefit ratios for low‐risk and high‐risk women. Int J Cancer 2020; 147:3059-3067. [DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2019] [Revised: 03/31/2020] [Accepted: 04/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Valérie D. V. Sankatsing
- Department of Public Health Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
| | - Nicolien T. Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A. M. Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
| | - Mireille J. M. Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening Nijmegen The Netherlands
| | - Harry J. Koning
- Department of Public Health Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, Csanádi M, Gini A, Ten Haaf K, Bendes R, Anttila A, Senore C, de Koning HJ. All-cause mortality versus cancer-specific mortality as outcome in cancer screening trials: A review and modeling study. Cancer Med 2019; 8:6127-6138. [PMID: 31422585 PMCID: PMC6792501 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2019] [Revised: 07/04/2019] [Accepted: 07/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND All-cause mortality has been suggested as an end-point in cancer screening trials in order to avoid biases in attributing the cause of death. The aim of this study was to investigate which sample size and follow-up is needed to find a significant reduction in all-cause mortality. METHODS A literature review was conducted to identify previous studies that modeled the effect of screening on all-cause mortality. Microsimulation modeling was used to simulate breast cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer screening trials. Model outputs were: cancer-specific deaths, all-cause deaths, and life-years gained per year of follow-up. RESULTS There were large differences between the evaluated cancers. For lung cancer, when 40 000 high-risk people are randomized to each arm, a significant reduction in all-cause mortality could be expected between 11 and 13 years of follow-up. For breast cancer, a significant reduction could be found between 16 and 26 years of follow-up for a sample size of over 300 000 women in each arm. For colorectal cancer, 600 000 persons in each arm were required to be followed for 15-20 years. Our systematic literature review identified seven papers, which showed highly similar results to our estimates. CONCLUSION Cancer screening trials are able to demonstrate a significant reduction in all-cause mortality due to screening, but require very large sample sizes. Depending on the cancer, 40 000-600 000 participants per arm are needed to demonstrate a significant reduction. The reduction in all-cause mortality can only be detected between specific years of follow-up, more limited than the timeframe to detect a reduction in cancer-specific mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Andrea Gini
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kevin Ten Haaf
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rita Bendes
- Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
| | | | - Carlo Senore
- SC Epidemiology, Screening, Cancer Registry, Città della Salute e della Scienza University Hospital, CPO, Turin, Italy
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT, Mann RM, de Roy van Zuidewijn DBW, Zonderland HM, Tollenaar RAEM, Lobbes MBI, Ausems MGEM, van 't Riet M, Hooning MJ, Mares-Engelberts I, Luiten EJT, Heijnsdijk EAM, Verhoef C, Karssemeijer N, Oosterwijk JC, Obdeijn IM, de Koning HJ, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, van Deurzen CHM, Loo CE, Wesseling J, Schlooz-Vries M, van der Meij S, Mesker W, Keymeulen K, Contant C, Madsen E, Koppert LB, Rothbarth J, Veldhuis WB, Witkamp AJ, Tetteroo E, de Monye C, van Rosmalen MM, Remmelzwaal J, Gort HBW, Roi-Antonides R, Wasser MNJM, van Druten E. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20:1136-1147. [DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30275-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2019] [Revised: 03/21/2019] [Accepted: 03/22/2019] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
|
24
|
Dierks T, Heijnsdijk EAM, Korfage IJ, Roobol MJ, de Koning HJ. Informed decision-making based on a leaflet in the context of prostate cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns 2019; 102:1483-1489. [PMID: 31014933 PMCID: PMC6800081 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2018] [Revised: 03/08/2019] [Accepted: 03/16/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We aimed to assess to what extent men make informed choices in the context of prostate cancer screening and how written material contributes to that process. METHODS We developed a leaflet describing prostate cancer screening, and a questionnaire consisting of knowledge, attitude, and intended screening uptake components to assess informed decision-making. The leaflet and questionnaire were pilot-tested among men of the target population, adapted accordingly, and sent to 761 members of an online research panel. We operationalized whether the leaflet was read as spending one minute on the leaflet page and by a self-reported answer of respondents. RESULTS The response rate was 66% (501/761). The group who read the leaflet (n = 342) correctly answered a knowledge item significantly more often (10.9 versus 8.8; p < 0.001) than those who did not read the leaflet (n = 159), and made more informed choices (73% versus 56%; p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in attitude and intended screening uptake between both groups. CONCLUSION Having read the leaflet could be one of the factors associated with increased levels of knowledge and informed decision-making. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The results of this study showed that increasing knowledge and supporting informed decision-making with written material are feasible in prostate cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa Dierks
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ida J Korfage
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
de Carvalho TM, Heijnsdijk EAM, Coffeng L, de Koning HJ. Evaluating Parameter Uncertainty in a Simulation Model of Cancer Using Emulators. Med Decis Making 2019; 39:405-413. [PMID: 31179833 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x19837631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Background. Microsimulation models have been extensively used in the field of cancer modeling. However, there is substantial uncertainty regarding estimates from these models, for example, overdiagnosis in prostate cancer. This is usually not thoroughly examined due to the high computational effort required. Objective. To quantify uncertainty in model outcomes due to uncertainty in model parameters, using a computationally efficient emulator (Gaussian process regression) instead of the model. Methods. We use a microsimulation model of prostate cancer (microsimulation screening analysis [MISCAN]) to simulate individual life histories. We analyze the effect of parametric uncertainty on overdiagnosis with probabilistic sensitivity analyses (ProbSAs). To minimize the number of MISCAN runs needed for ProbSAs, we emulate MISCAN, using data pairs of parameter values and outcomes to fit a Gaussian process regression model. We evaluate to what extent the emulator accurately reproduces MISCAN by computing its prediction error. Results. Using an emulator instead of MISCAN, we may reduce the computation time necessary to run a ProbSA by more than 85%. The average relative prediction error of the emulator for overdiagnosis equaled 1.7%. We predicted that 42% of screen-detected men are overdiagnosed, with an associated empirical confidence interval between 38% and 48%. Sensitivity analyses show that the accuracy of the emulator is sensitive to which model parameters are included in the training runs. Conclusions. For a computationally expensive simulation model with a large number of parameters, we show it is possible to conduct a ProbSA, within a reasonable computation time, by using a Gaussian process regression emulator instead of the original simulation model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiago M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.,Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, UK
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
| | - Luc Coffeng
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, Nieboer D, Garg T, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, de Koning HJ, Nielsen ME. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance schedules in older adults with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. BJU Int 2018; 123:307-312. [PMID: 30066439 PMCID: PMC6378589 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance schedules for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) amongst older adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS We developed a MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of various surveillance schedules (every 3 months to every 24 months, for 2, 5 or 10 years or lifetime) for older adults (aged 65-85 years) with NMIBC. For each surveillance schedule we calculated total costs per patient and the number of quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), as incremental costs per QALY gained, were calculated using a 3% discount. RESULTS As age increased, the number of QALYs gained per patient decreased substantially. Surveillance of patients aged 65 years resulted in 2-7 QALYs gained, whereas surveillance at age 85 years led to <1 QALY gained. The total costs of the surveillance schedules also decreased as age increased. The ICER of 6-monthly surveillance at age 65 years for lifetime was $4999 (American dollars)/QALY gained. Amongst patients aged >75 years, the incremental yield of QALY gains for any increase in surveillance frequency and/or duration was quite modest (<2 QALYs gained). CONCLUSION With increasing age, surveillance for recurrences leads to substantially fewer QALYs gained. These data support age-specific surveillance recommendations for patients treated for NMIBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, The Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daan Nieboer
- Department of Public Health, The Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tullika Garg
- Departments of Urology, Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, The Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, The Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthew E Nielsen
- Departments of Urology, Epidemiology and Health Policy and Management, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Sankatsing VDV, Fracheboud J, de Munck L, Broeders MJM, van Ravesteyn NT, Heijnsdijk EAM, Verbeek ALM, Otten JDM, Pijnappel RM, Siesling S, de Koning HJ. Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening. BMC Cancer 2018; 18:256. [PMID: 29506487 PMCID: PMC5839006 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4122-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2017] [Accepted: 02/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Between 2003 and 2010 digital mammography (DM) gradually replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (BCSP). Previous studies showed increases in detection rate (DR) after the transition to DM. However, national interval cancer rates (ICR) have not yet been reported. Methods We assessed programme sensitivity and specificity during the transition period to DM, analysing nationwide data on screen-detected and interval cancers. Data of 7.3 million screens in women aged 49–74, between 2004 and 2011, were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to obtain data on interval cancers. Age-adjusted DRs, ICRs and recall rates (RR) per 1000 screens and programme sensitivity and specificity were calculated by year, age and screening modality. Results 41,662 screen-detected and 16,160 interval cancers were analysed. The DR significantly increased from 5.13 (95% confidence interval (CI):5.00–5.30) in 2004 to 6.34 (95% CI:6.15–6.47) in 2011, for both in situ (2004:0.73;2011:1.24) and invasive cancers (2004:4.42;2011:5.07), whereas the ICR remained stable (2004: 2.16 (95% CI2.06–2.25);2011: 2.13 (95% CI:2.04–2.22)). The RR changed significantly from 14.0 to 21.4. Programme sensitivity significantly increased, mainly between ages 49–59, from 70.0% (95% CI:68.9–71.2) to 74.4% (95% CI:73.5–75.4) whereas specificity slightly declined (2004:99.1% (95% CI:99.09–99.13);2011:98.5% (95% CI:98.45–98.50)). The overall DR was significantly higher for DM than for SFM (6.24;5.36) as was programme sensitivity (73.6%;70.1%), the ICR was similar (2.19;2.20) and specificity was significantly lower for DM (98.5%;98.9%). Conclusions During the transition from SFM to DM, there was a significant rise in DR and a stable ICR, leading to increased programme sensitivity. Although the recall rate increased, programme specificity remained high compared to other countries. These findings indicate that the performance of DM in a nationwide screening programme is not inferior to, and may be even better, than that of SFM. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4122-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valérie D V Sankatsing
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands.
| | - Jacques Fracheboud
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands
| | - Linda de Munck
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), PO Box 19079, Utrecht, 3501, DB, The Netherlands
| | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500, HB, The Netherlands.,Dutch Reference Center for Screening, PO Box 6873, Nijmegen, 6503, GJ, The Netherlands
| | | | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands
| | - André L M Verbeek
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500, HB, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes D M Otten
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500, HB, The Netherlands
| | - Ruud M Pijnappel
- Dutch Reference Center for Screening, PO Box 6873, Nijmegen, 6503, GJ, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), PO Box 19079, Utrecht, 3501, DB, The Netherlands.,Department of Health Technology & Services Research, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, PO Box 217, Enschede, 7500, AE, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3015, CN, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
de Carvalho TM, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer screening between the ages of 55 and 69 years followed by active surveillance. Cancer 2017; 124:507-513. [PMID: 29231973 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2017] [Revised: 07/18/2017] [Accepted: 07/27/2017] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Because of the recent grade C draft recommendation by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for prostate cancer screening between the ages of 55 and 69 years, there is a need to determine whether this could be cost-effective in a US population setting. METHODS This study used a microsimulation model of screening and active surveillance (AS), based on data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, for the natural history of prostate cancer and Johns Hopkins AS cohort data to inform the probabilities of referral to treatment during AS. A cohort of 10 million men, based on US life tables, was simulated. The lifetime costs and effects of screening between the ages of 55 and 69 years with different screening frequencies and AS protocols were projected, and their cost-effectiveness was determined. RESULTS Quadrennial screening between the ages of 55 and 69 years (55, 59, 63, and 67 years) with AS for men with low-risk cancers (ie, those with a Gleason score of 6 or lower) and yearly biopsies or triennial biopsies resulted in an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of $51,918 or $69,380, respectively. Most policies in which screening was followed by immediate treatment were dominated. In most sensitivity analyses, this study found a policy with which the cost per QALY remained below $100,000. CONCLUSIONS Prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening in the United States between the ages of 55 and 69 years, as recommended by the USPSTF, may be cost-effective at a $100,000 threshold but only with a quadrennial screening frequency and with AS offered to all low-risk men. Cancer 2018;124:507-13. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiago M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
de Koning HJ, Gulati R, Moss SM, Hugosson J, Pinsky PF, Berg CD, Auvinen A, Andriole GL, Roobol MJ, Crawford ED, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Zappa M, Luján M, Villers A, de Carvalho TM, Feuer EJ, Tsodikov A, Mariotto AB, Heijnsdijk EAM, Etzioni R. The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. Cancer 2017; 124:1197-1206. [PMID: 29211316 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2017] [Revised: 11/06/2017] [Accepted: 11/07/2017] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates. METHODS The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials. RESULTS Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0. CONCLUSIONS The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Roman Gulati
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | - Sue M Moss
- Wolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jonas Hugosson
- Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Goteborg, Sweden
| | - Paul F Pinsky
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Christine D Berg
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Anssi Auvinen
- School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Gerald L Andriole
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Vera Nelen
- Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium
| | | | - Marco Zappa
- Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy
| | - Marcos Luján
- Urology Service, Infanta Cristina University Hospital, Complutense University of Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain
| | - Arnauld Villers
- Department of Urology, Regional University Hospital Center, Lille, France
| | - Tiago M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eric J Feuer
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Alex Tsodikov
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Angela B Mariotto
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | | | - Ruth Etzioni
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Tsodikov A, Gulati R, Heijnsdijk EAM, Pinsky PF, Moss SM, Qiu S, de Carvalho TM, Hugosson J, Berg CD, Auvinen A, Andriole GL, Roobol MJ, Crawford ED, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Zappa M, Luján M, Villers A, Feuer EJ, de Koning HJ, Mariotto AB, Etzioni R. Reconciling the Effects of Screening on Prostate Cancer Mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO Trials. Ann Intern Med 2017; 167:449-455. [PMID: 28869989 PMCID: PMC5734053 DOI: 10.7326/m16-2586] [Citation(s) in RCA: 132] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) found that screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, but the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) found no reduction. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality relative to no screening differed between the ERSPC and PLCO. DESIGN Cox regression of prostate cancer death in each trial group, adjusted for age and trial. Extended analyses accounted for increased incidence due to screening and diagnostic work-up in each group via mean lead times (MLTs), which were estimated empirically and using analytic or microsimulation models. SETTING Randomized controlled trials in Europe and the United States. PARTICIPANTS Men aged 55 to 69 (ERSPC) or 55 to 74 (PLCO) years at randomization. INTERVENTION Prostate cancer screening. MEASUREMENTS Prostate cancer incidence and survival from randomization; prostate cancer incidence in the United States before screening began. RESULTS Estimated MLTs were similar in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups but were longer in the PLCO control group than the ERSPC control group. Extended analyses found no evidence that effects of screening differed between trials (P = 0.37 to 0.47 [range across MLT estimation approaches]) but strong evidence that benefit increased with MLT (P = 0.0027 to 0.0032). Screening was estimated to confer a 7% to 9% reduction in the risk for prostate cancer death per year of MLT. This translated into estimates of 25% to 31% and 27% to 32% lower risk for prostate cancer death with screening as performed in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups, respectively, compared with no screening. LIMITATION The MLT is a simple metric of screening and diagnostic work-up. CONCLUSION After differences in implementation and settings are accounted for, the ERSPC and PLCO provide compatible evidence that screening reduces prostate cancer mortality. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Cancer Institute.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Tsodikov
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Roman Gulati
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Paul F Pinsky
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Sue M Moss
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Sheng Qiu
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Tiago M de Carvalho
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Jonas Hugosson
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Christine D Berg
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Anssi Auvinen
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Gerald L Andriole
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Monique J Roobol
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - E David Crawford
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Vera Nelen
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Maciej Kwiatkowski
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Marco Zappa
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Marcos Luján
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Arnauld Villers
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Eric J Feuer
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Harry J de Koning
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Angela B Mariotto
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| | - Ruth Etzioni
- From University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado; Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium; Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland; Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Parla, Madrid, Spain; and Université de Lille, Lille, France
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Sankatsing VDV, van Ravesteyn NT, Heijnsdijk EAM, Looman CWN, van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJM, de Koning HJ. The effect of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities on breast cancer mortality: 20 years of follow-up. Int J Cancer 2017; 141:671-677. [PMID: 28457023 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30754] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2016] [Revised: 01/09/2017] [Accepted: 01/24/2017] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
Long-term follow-up data on the effects of screening are scarce, and debate exists on the relative contribution of screening versus treatment to breast cancer mortality reduction. Our aim was therefore to assess the long-term effect of screening by age and time of implementation. We obtained data on 69,630 breast cancer deaths between 1980 and 2010 by municipality (N = 431) and age of death (40-79) in the Netherlands. Breast cancer mortality trends were analyzed by defining the municipality-specific calendar year of introduction of screening as Year 0. Additionally, log-linear Poisson regression was used to estimate the turning point in the trend after Year 0, per municipality, and the annual percentage change (APC) before and after this point. Twenty years after introduction of screening breast cancer mortality was reduced by 30% in women aged 55-74 and by 34% in women aged 75-79, compared to Year 0. A similar and significant decrease was present in municipalities that started early (1987-1992) and late (1995-1997) with screening, despite the difference in availability of effective adjuvant treatment. In the age groups 55-74 and 75-79, the turning point in the trend in breast cancer mortality was estimated in Years 2 and 6 after the introduction of screening, respectively, after which mortality decreased significantly by 1.9% and 2.6% annually. These findings show that the implementation of mammography screening in Dutch municipalities is associated with a significant decline in breast cancer mortality in women aged 55-79, irrespective of time of implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valérie D V Sankatsing
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Caspar W N Looman
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paula A van Luijt
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jacques Fracheboud
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Dutch Reference Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
de Carvalho TM, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. When should active surveillance for prostate cancer stop if no progression is detected? Prostate 2017; 77:962-969. [PMID: 28419541 DOI: 10.1002/pros.23352] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2016] [Accepted: 03/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A significant proportion of screen-detected men with prostate cancer may be overdiagnosed. Active Surveillance (AS) has emerged as a way to mitigate this problem, by delaying treatment of men, who are at low-risk until this becomes necessary. However, it is not known after how much time or biopsy rounds should patients stop AS and transition to conservative management (CM), if no progression is detected. METHODS We used a microsimulation model with natural history of prostate cancer based on ERSPC and SEER data. We modeled referral to treatment while in AS, based on Johns Hopkins treatment-free survival data. We projected lifetime costs and effects of AS (and radical treatment, if progression is detected) under different biopsy follow-up schedules compared to CM, where radical treatment only occurs when men would be clinically diagnosed in absence of screening. RESULTS For men with low-risk disease in younger age groups (55-65), AS is cost-effective for up to 7 yearly biopsy rounds. For men older than 65, even one biopsy round results in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) lost, though it may result in QALYs gained for men without previous screening. For men with intermediate-risk disease AS is cost-effective even for men in 65-75 age group. CONCLUSIONS The benefit of AS when compared to CM is strongly dependent on life expectancy and disease risk. Clinicians should take this into account when selecting men to AS, deciding on biopsy frequency and when to stop AS surveillance rounds and transition to CM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiago M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Tsodikov A, Gulati R, de Carvalho TM, Heijnsdijk EAM, Hunter-Merrill RA, Mariotto AB, de Koning HJ, Etzioni R. Is prostate cancer different in black men? Answers from 3 natural history models. Cancer 2017; 123:2312-2319. [PMID: 28436011 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2016] [Revised: 01/04/2017] [Accepted: 01/05/2017] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Black men in the United States have substantially higher prostate cancer incidence rates than the general population. The extent to which this incidence disparity is because prostate cancer is more prevalent, more aggressive, and/or more frequently diagnosed in black men is unknown. METHODS The authors estimated 3 independently developed models of prostate cancer natural history in black men and in the general population using an updated reconstruction of prostate-specific antigen screening, based on the National Health Interview Survey in 2005 and on prostate cancer incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program during 1975 through 2000. By using the estimated models, the natural history of prostate cancer was compared between black men and the general population. RESULTS The models projected that from 30% to 43% (range across models) of black men develop preclinical prostate cancer by age 85 years, a risk that is (relatively) 28% to 56% higher than that in the general population. Among men who had preclinical disease onset, black men had a similar risk of diagnosis (range, 35%-49%) compared with the general population (32%-44%), but their risk of progression to metastatic disease by the time of diagnosis was from 44% to 75% higher than that in the general population. CONCLUSIONS Prostate cancer incidence patterns implicate higher incidence of preclinical disease and higher risk of metastatic progression among black men. The findings suggest screening black men earlier than white men and support further research into the benefit-harm tradeoffs of more aggressive screening policies for black men. Cancer 2017;123:2312-2319. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Tsodikov
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Roman Gulati
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Tiago M de Carvalho
- Division of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Division of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rachel A Hunter-Merrill
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Angela B Mariotto
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Division of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ruth Etzioni
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. Cost-effectiveness of the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. Int J Cancer 2016; 140:833-840. [PMID: 27861849 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30513] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2016] [Revised: 10/31/2016] [Accepted: 11/02/2016] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) has a nation-wide coverage since 2005. All women aged 50-69 years are invited biennially for mammography screening. We evaluated breast cancer mortality reduction and performed a cost-effectiveness analysis, using our microsimulation model, calibrated to most recent data. The microsimulation model allows for the comparison of mortality and costs between a (hypothetical) situation without screening and a situation with screening. Breast cancer incidence in Norway had a steep increase in the early 1990s. We calibrated the model to simulate this increase and included recent costs for screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer and travel and productivity loss. We estimate a 16% breast cancer mortality reduction for a cohort of women, invited to screening, followed over their complete lifetime. Cost-effectiveness is estimated at NOK 112,162 per QALY gained, when taking only direct medical costs into account (the cost of the buses, examinations, and invitations). We used a 3.5% annual discount rate. Cost-effectiveness estimates are substantially below the threshold of NOK 1,926,366 as recommended by the WHO guidelines. For the Norwegian population, which has been gradually exposed to screening, breast cancer mortality reduction for women exposed to screening is increasing and is estimated to rise to ∼30% in 2020 for women aged 55-80 years. The NBCSP is a highly cost-effective measure to reduce breast cancer specific mortality. We estimate a breast cancer specific mortality reduction of 16-30%, at the cost of 112,162 NOK per QALY gained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P A van Luijt
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, CA Rotterdam, 3000, Netherlands
| | - E A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, CA Rotterdam, 3000, Netherlands
| | - H J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, CA Rotterdam, 3000, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Carlsson SV, de Carvalho TM, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, Auvinen A, Kwiatkowski M, Villers A, Zappa M, Nelen V, Páez A, Eastham JA, Lilja H, de Koning HJ, Vickers AJ, Heijnsdijk EAM. Estimating the harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening as used in common practice versus recommended good practice: A microsimulation screening analysis. Cancer 2016; 122:3386-3393. [PMID: 27459245 PMCID: PMC5073010 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2016] [Revised: 06/07/2016] [Accepted: 06/07/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus "good practice." METHODS Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386-3393. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sigrid V Carlsson
- Deptartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
- Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
| | - Tiago M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jonas Hugosson
- Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Anssi Auvinen
- School of Health Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
| | - Maciej Kwiatkowski
- Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland
- Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany
| | - Arnauld Villers
- Department of Urology, Lille University Hospital, University of Lille Nord de France, Lille, France
| | - Marco Zappa
- Unit of Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Research and Prevention-ISPO, Florence, Italy
| | - Vera Nelen
- Provincial Institute for Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Alvaro Páez
- Department of Urology, Fuenlabrada University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - James A Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Hans Lilja
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
- Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmo, Sweden
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
de Carvalho TM, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. Estimating the risks and benefits of active surveillance protocols for prostate cancer: a microsimulation study. BJU Int 2016; 119:560-566. [PMID: 27222299 DOI: 10.1111/bju.13542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the increase in prostate cancer mortality (PCM) and the reduction in overtreatment resulting from different active surveillance (AS) protocols, compared with treating men immediately. PATIENTS AND METHODS We used a microsimulation model (MISCAN-Prostate), with the natural history of prostate cancer based on European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer data. We estimated the probabilities of referral to radical treatment while on AS, depending on disease stage, using data from the Johns Hopkins AS cohort. We sampled 10 million men, representative of the US population, and projected the effects of applying AS protocols that differed by time between biopsies and compared these with the effects of treating men immediately. RESULTS We found that AS with yearly follow-up biopsies for men with low-risk prostate cancer (≤ T2a stage and Gleason 6) increases the probability of PCM to 2.6% (1% increase) and reduces overtreatment from 2.5 to 2.1% (18.4% reduction). With biopsies every 3 years after the first year, PCM increases by 2.3% and overtreatment reduces from 2.5 to 1.9% (30.3% reduction). The inclusion of men in the intermediate-risk group (> T2a stage or Gleason 3+4) in AS protocols increases PCM by 2.7% and reduces overtreatment from 2.5 to 2.0% (23.1% reduction). These results may not apply to African-American men. CONCLUSIONS Offering AS to men with low-risk prostate cancer is relatively safe. Increasing the biopsy interval from yearly to up to every 3 years after the first year will significantly reduce overtreatment among men in the low-risk group, with limited PCM risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiago M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Obdeijn IM, Heijnsdijk EAM, Hunink MGM, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, de Koning HJ. Mammographic screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers postponed until age 40: Evaluation of benefits, costs and radiation risks using models. Eur J Cancer 2016; 63:135-42. [PMID: 27318001 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.05.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2016] [Revised: 05/05/2016] [Accepted: 05/09/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE BRCA1 mutation carriers are offered screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography. The aim of this study was to weigh benefits and risks of postponing mammographic screening until age 40. METHODS With the MISCAN microsimulation model two screening protocols were evaluated: 1) the current Dutch guidelines: annual MRI from age 25-60, annual mammography from age 30-60, and biennial mammography in the nationwide program from age 60-74, and 2) the modified protocol: with annual mammography postponed until age 40. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The risks of radiation-induced breast cancer mortality were estimated with absolute and relative exposure-risk models of the 7th Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation Committee. RESULTS Current screening guidelines prevent 13,139 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 BRCA1 mutation carriers. Postponing mammography until age 40 would increase breast cancer deaths by 23 (0.17%), but would also reduce radiation-induced breast cancer deaths by 15 or 105 using the absolute and relative risk model respectively per 100,000 women screened. The estimated net effect is an increase of eight or a reduction of 82 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 women screened (depending on the risk model used). The incremental cost of mammograms between age 30-39 is €272,900 per life year gained. CONCLUSIONS The modified protocol may be slightly less effective or even better than the current guidelines. The high cost-savings justify a possible small loss of effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Inge-Marie Obdeijn
- Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Public Health, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - M G Myriam Hunink
- Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075 EA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Epidemiology, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
| | | | - Harry J de Koning
- Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Public Health, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, Denham D, de Koning HJ. The Cost-Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Detection with the Use of Prostate Health Index. Value Health 2016; 19:153-157. [PMID: 27021748 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2015] [Revised: 11/23/2015] [Accepted: 12/01/2015] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trial results suggested that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening can reduce prostate cancer mortality. Nevertheless, because the specificity of the PSA test for cancer detection is low, it leads to many negative biopsies. The Beckman Coulter Prostate Health Index (PHI) testing demonstrates improved specificity compared with the PSA-only screening and therefore may improve the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer detection. OBJECTIVE To examine the cost-effectiveness of adding PHI testing to improve cancer detection for men with elevated serum PSA. METHODS A microsimulation model, based on the results of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer trial, was used to evaluate the effects of PSA screening and PHI reflex testing. We predicted the numbers of prostate cancers, negative biopsies, deaths, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and cost-effectiveness of both PSA (cutoff 3 ng/mL) and PHI (cutoff 25) testing methods for a European population, screened from age 50 to 75 years at 4-year intervals. RESULTS When the PHI test was added to the PSA screening, for men with a PSA between 3 and 10 ng/mL, the model predicted a 23% reduction in negative biopsies. This would lead to a 17% reduction in costs for diagnostics and 1% reduction in total costs for prostate cancer. The cost-effectiveness (3.5% discounted) was 11% better. Limitations found were the modeling assumptions on the sensitivity and specificity of PHI by tumor stage and cutoff values. CONCLUSIONS Compared with PSA-only screening, the use of a PHI test can substantially reduce the number of negative biopsies and improve the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Dwight Denham
- Global Health Economics and Reimbursement, Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
de Carvalho TM, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. Estimating the individual benefit of immediate treatment or active surveillance for prostate cancer after screen-detection in older (65+) men. Int J Cancer 2016; 138:2522-8. [PMID: 26695380 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29976] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2015] [Revised: 11/11/2015] [Accepted: 11/24/2015] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
A significant proportion of screen-detected men with prostate cancer is likely to be overtreated, especially in older age groups. We aim to find which groups of screen-detected older men (65+) benefit the most from Immediate Radical Treatment or Active Surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer, depending on age, screening history, health status and prostate cancer stage at detection. We used a microsimulation model (MISCAN) of the natural history of prostate cancer based on ERSPC data. Individual life histories are simulated with US comorbidity lifetables based on a random sample of MEDICARE data. Different screening histories are simulated and we count outcomes for men screen-detected from ages 66 to 72. For immediately treated men with low-risk disease (≤ T2a, Gleason 6) the probability of overtreatment ranges from 61% to 86% decreasing to between 37 and 46%, if they are assigned to AS. For intermediate risk men (≤ T2, Gleason 3 + 4) overtreatment ranges from 23 to 60%, which reduces to between 16 and 31% for AS. For high risk men (T3, or ≥ Gleason 4 + 3), overtreatment ranges from 11 to 51%. The disease stage at screen-detection is a critical risk factor for overtreatment. For low risk men, AS seems to significantly reduce overtreatment at a modest cost. For intermediate risk men, the decision between immediate treatment or AS depends on age and comorbidity status. Men screen-detected in a high risk disease stage may benefit from immediate treatment even beyond age 69.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiago M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Affiliation(s)
- Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (EH, HdK).
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (EH, HdK)
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
de Koning HJ, Heijnsdijk EAM. Swiss Medical Board Mammography screening predictions for Switzerland: Importance of time-periods. J Med Screen 2015; 22:201-6. [DOI: 10.1177/0969141315586639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2014] [Accepted: 04/09/2015] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Objectives In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board (SMB) concluded that for three breast cancer screens over 13 years in Switzerland, cost-effectiveness was negative, with no additional benefits in quality-adjusted life-years gained. We compared these suggested predicted effects with other estimates. Methods We used an extensively validated model on the natural history of breast cancer in Switzerland, comparing a 13-year time frame, a life-time perspective, and a continuous screening programme, per 10,000 Swiss women. Both approaches used the Swedish randomized controlled trials for the theoretical effect. Results Over 13 years, both approaches yield comparable life-years gained (56 versus 67), but in expectation in 10,000 women’s lifetimes 444 life-years are gained, and in a continuous screening programme (instead of three screens) 839 years. The SMB estimate of 56 life-years gained is counterweighted by 57 negative quality of life adjusted years, primarily resulting from a 5% annual loss for 10% of women, being false-positive results. International literature is consistent with more than four times lower losses on false-positives. The estimate of overdiagnosed cases in the 13-year time frame was four times higher than in the long-term perspective. Conclusions By restricting life-years gained to a 13-year time frame the SMB prediction on benefits of mammography screening is unrealistically low. Predicting long-term harms and benefits, specifically tailored to observations, regarding the clinical situation before screening commences, and possible data during a screening programme, are crucial for women, professionals, and policymakers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- HJ de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - EAM Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
van Ravesteyn NT, Stout NK, Schechter CB, Heijnsdijk EAM, Alagoz O, Trentham-Dietz A, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ. Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107:djv103. [PMID: 25948872 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2014] [Accepted: 03/17/2015] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to quantify the benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years, focusing on the amount of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS Three well-established microsimulation models were used to simulate a cohort of American women born in 1960. All women received biennial screening starting at age 50 years with cessation ages varying from 74 up to 96 years. We estimated the number of life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life-years, breast cancer deaths averted, false-positives, and overdiagnosed women per 1000 screens. RESULTS The models predicted that there were 7.8 to 11.4 LYG per 1000 screens at age 74 years (range across models), decreasing to 4.8 to 7.8 LYG per 1000 screens at age 80 years, and 1.4 to 2.4 LYG per 1000 screens at age 90 years. When adjusted for quality-of-life decrements, the LYG decreased by 5% to 13% at age 74 years and 11% to 22% at age 80 years. At age 90 to 92 years, all LYG were counterbalanced by a loss in quality-of-life, mainly because of the increasing number of overdiagnosed breast cancers per 1000 screens: 1.2 to 5.0 at age 74 years, 1.8 to 6.0 at age 80 years, and 3.7 to 7.5 at age 90 years. The age at which harms began to outweigh benefits shifted to a younger age when larger or longer utility losses because of a breast cancer diagnosis were assumed. CONCLUSION The balance between screening benefits and harms becomes less favorable after age 74 years. At age 90 years, harms outweigh benefits, largely as a consequence of overdiagnosis. This age was the same across the three models, despite important model differences in assumptions on DCIS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, EAMH, HJdK); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (OA) and Carbone Cancer Center and Department of Population Health Sciences (ATD), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (JSM).
| | - Natasha K Stout
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, EAMH, HJdK); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (OA) and Carbone Cancer Center and Department of Population Health Sciences (ATD), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (JSM)
| | - Clyde B Schechter
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, EAMH, HJdK); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (OA) and Carbone Cancer Center and Department of Population Health Sciences (ATD), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (JSM)
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, EAMH, HJdK); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (OA) and Carbone Cancer Center and Department of Population Health Sciences (ATD), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (JSM)
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, EAMH, HJdK); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (OA) and Carbone Cancer Center and Department of Population Health Sciences (ATD), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (JSM)
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, EAMH, HJdK); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (OA) and Carbone Cancer Center and Department of Population Health Sciences (ATD), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (JSM)
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, EAMH, HJdK); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (OA) and Carbone Cancer Center and Department of Population Health Sciences (ATD), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (JSM)
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, EAMH, HJdK); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (OA) and Carbone Cancer Center and Department of Population Health Sciences (ATD), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (JSM)
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
van Ravesteyn NT, van Lier L, Schechter CB, Ekwueme DU, Royalty J, Miller JW, Near AM, Cronin KA, Heijnsdijk EAM, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ. Transition from film to digital mammography: impact for breast cancer screening through the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program. Am J Prev Med 2015; 48:535-42. [PMID: 25891052 PMCID: PMC4405659 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.11.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2014] [Revised: 10/28/2014] [Accepted: 11/17/2014] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides mammograms and diagnostic services for low-income, uninsured women aged 40-64 years. Mammography facilities within the NBCCEDP gradually shifted from plain-film to digital mammography. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of replacing film with digital mammography on health effects (deaths averted, life-years gained [LYG]); costs (for screening and diagnostics); and number of women reached. METHODS NBCCEDP 2010 data and data representative of the program's target population were used in two established microsimulation models. Models simulated observed screening behavior including different screening intervals (annual, biennial, irregular) and starting ages (40, 50 years) for white, black, and Hispanic women. Model runs were performed in 2012. RESULTS The models predicted 8.0-8.3 LYG per 1,000 film screens for black women, 5.9-7.5 for white women, and 4.0-4.5 for Hispanic women. For all race/ethnicity groups, digital mammography had more LYG than film mammography (2%-4%), but had higher costs (34%-35%). Assuming a fixed budget, 25%-26% fewer women could be served, resulting in 22%-24% fewer LYG if all mammograms were converted to digital. The loss in LYG could be reversed to an 8%-13% increase by only including biennial screening. CONCLUSIONS Digital could result in slightly more LYG than film mammography. However, with a fixed budget, fewer women may be served with fewer LYG. Changes in the program, such as only including biennial screening, will increase LYG/screen and could offset the potential decrease in LYG when shifting to digital mammography.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lisanne van Lier
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam; Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Clyde B Schechter
- Departments of Family & Social Medicine and Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein School of Medicine, Bronx, New York
| | | | | | | | - Aimee M Near
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Kathleen A Cronin
- Statistical Research and Application Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
| | | | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EAM, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, de Koning HJ. The effects of population-based mammography screening starting between age 40 and 50 in the presence of adjuvant systemic therapy. Int J Cancer 2014; 137:165-72. [PMID: 25430053 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29364] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2014] [Accepted: 11/13/2014] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
Adjuvant systemic therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality. The additional effect of mammography screening remains uncertain, in particular for women aged 40-49 years. We therefore assessed the effects of screening starting between age 40 and 50, as compared to the effects of adjuvant systemic therapy. The use of adjuvant endocrine therapy, chemotherapy and the combination of endocrine- and chemotherapy, as well as the uptake of mammography screening in the Netherlands was modeled using micro-simulation. The effects of screening and treatment were modeled based on randomized controlled trials. The effects of adjuvant therapy, biennial screening between age 50 and 74 in the presence of adjuvant therapy, and extending the screening programme by starting at age 40 were assessed by comparing breast cancer mortality in women aged 0-100 years in scenarios with and without these interventions. In 2008, adjuvant treatment was estimated to have reduced the breast cancer mortality rate in the simulated population by 13.9%, compared to a situation without treatment. Biennial screening between age 50 and 74 further reduced the mortality rate by 15.7%. Extending screening to age 48 would lower the mortality rate by 1.0% compared to screening from age 50; 10 additional screening rounds between age 40 and 49 would reduce this rate by 5.1%. Adjuvant systemic therapy and screening reduced breast cancer mortality in similar amounts. Expanding the lower age limit of screening would further reduce breast cancer mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rianne de Gelder
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Heijnsdijk EAM, de Carvalho TM, Auvinen A, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Villers A, Páez A, Moss SM, Tammela TLJ, Recker F, Denis L, Carlsson SV, Wever EM, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ, Hugosson J, de Koning HJ. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 107:366. [PMID: 25505238 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 105] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The results of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial showed a statistically significant 29% prostate cancer mortality reduction for the men screened in the intervention arm and a 23% negative impact on the life-years gained because of quality of life. However, alternative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies for the population may exist, optimizing the effects on mortality reduction, quality of life, overdiagnosis, and costs. METHODS Based on data of the ERSPC trial, we predicted the numbers of prostate cancers diagnosed, prostate cancer deaths averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, and cost-effectiveness of 68 screening strategies starting at age 55 years, with a PSA threshold of 3, using microsimulation modeling. The screening strategies varied by age to stop screening and screening interval (one to 14 years or once in a lifetime screens), and therefore number of tests. RESULTS Screening at short intervals of three years or less was more cost-effective than using longer intervals. Screening at ages 55 to 59 years with two-year intervals had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $73000 per QALY gained and was considered optimal. With this strategy, lifetime prostate cancer mortality reduction was predicted as 13%, and 33% of the screen-detected cancers were overdiagnosed. When better quality of life for the post-treatment period could be achieved, an older age of 65 to 72 years for ending screening was obtained. CONCLUSION Prostate cancer screening can be cost-effective when it is limited to two or three screens between ages 55 to 59 years. Screening above age 63 years is less cost-effective because of loss of QALYs because of overdiagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC).
| | - T M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - A Auvinen
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - M Zappa
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - V Nelen
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - M Kwiatkowski
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - A Villers
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - A Páez
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - S M Moss
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - T L J Tammela
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - F Recker
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - L Denis
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - S V Carlsson
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - E M Wever
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - C H Bangma
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - F H Schröder
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - M J Roobol
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - J Hugosson
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| | - H J de Koning
- Department of Public Health (EAMH, TMdC, EMW, HJdK) and Department of Urology (CHB, FHS, MJR), Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Tampere School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (AA); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Florence, Italy (MZ); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiëne, Antwerp, Belgium (VN, LD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (MK, FR); Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Lille, France (AV); Department of Urology, Hospital de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain (AP); Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, UK (SMM); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (TLJT); Oncology Center, Antwerp, Belgium (LD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden (SVC, JH); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery (Urology), New York, NY (SVC)
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Zelle SG, Baltussen R, Otten JDM, Heijnsdijk EAM, van Schoor G, Broeders MJM. Predicting the stage shift as a result of breast cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries: a proof of concept. J Med Screen 2014; 22:8-19. [PMID: 25416699 DOI: 10.1177/0969141314559956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To provide proof of concept for a simple model to estimate the stage shift as a result of breast cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Stage shift is an essential early detection indicator and an important proxy for the performance and possible further impact of screening programmes. Our model could help LIMCs to choose appropriate control strategies. METHODS We assessed our model concept in three steps. First, we calculated the proportional performance rates (i.e. index number Z) based on 16 screening rounds of the Nijmegen Screening Program (384,884 screened women). Second, we used linear regression to assess the association between Z and the amount of stage shift observed in the programme. Third, we hypothesized how Z could be used to estimate the stage shift as a result of breast cancer screening in LMICs. RESULTS Stage shifts can be estimated by the proportional performance rates (Zs) using linear regression. Zs calculated for each screening round are highly associated with the observed stage shifts in the Nijmegen Screening Program (Pearson's R: 0.798, R square: 0.637). CONCLUSIONS Our model can predict the stage shifts in the Nijmegen Screening Program, and could be applied to settings with different characteristics, although it should not be straightforwardly used to estimate the impact on mortality. Further research should investigate the extrapolation of our model to other settings. As stage shift is an essential screening performance indicator, our model could provide important information on the performance of breast cancer screening programmes that LMICs consider implementing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sten G Zelle
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Rob Baltussen
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes D M Otten
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Guido van Schoor
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Dutch reference centre for screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Mühlberger N, Heijnsdijk EAM, Kurzthaler C, Iskandar R, Krahn MD, Bremner K, Oberaigner W, Klocker H, Horninger W, Conrads-Frank A, Sroczynski G, Siebert U. The Oncotyrol Prostate Cancer Outcome and Policy Model - How Latent Prevalence Affects the Benefit-Harm Balance of Screening. Value Health 2014; 17:A559. [PMID: 27201843 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.1843] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- N Mühlberger
- UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology / Oncotyrol - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Hall i. T. / Innsbruck, Austria
| | - E A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C Kurzthaler
- UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology / Oncotyrol - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Hall i. T. / Innsbruck, Austria
| | - R Iskandar
- UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology / Oncotyrol - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Hall i. T. / Innsbruck, Austria
| | - M D Krahn
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - K Bremner
- University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - W Oberaigner
- Cancer Registry of Tyrol, TILAK GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - H Klocker
- Department of Urology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - W Horninger
- Department of Urology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - A Conrads-Frank
- UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i. T., Austria
| | - G Sroczynski
- UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology/ ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Hall in Tyrol/ Innsbruck, Austria
| | - U Siebert
- Medical Informatics and Technology, and Director of the Division for Health Technology Assessment and Bioinformatics, ONCOTYROL, Hall i. T, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Munoz D, Near AM, van Ravesteyn NT, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, Alagoz O, Berry DA, Burnside ES, Chang Y, Chisholm G, de Koning HJ, Ali Ergun M, Heijnsdijk EAM, Huang H, Stout NK, Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A, Mandelblatt JS, Plevritis SK. Effects of screening and systemic adjuvant therapy on ER-specific US breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106:dju289. [PMID: 25255803 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju289] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Molecular characterization of breast cancer allows subtype-directed interventions. Estrogen receptor (ER) is the longest-established molecular marker. METHODS We used six established population models with ER-specific input parameters on age-specific incidence, disease natural history, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects to quantify the impact of screening and adjuvant therapy on age-adjusted US breast cancer mortality by ER status from 1975 to 2000. Outcomes included stage-shifts and absolute and relative reductions in mortality; sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of varying screening frequency or accuracy. RESULTS In the year 2000, actual screening and adjuvant treatment reduced breast cancer mortality by a median of 17 per 100000 women (model range = 13-21) and 5 per 100000 women (model range = 3-6) for ER-positive and ER-negative cases, respectively, relative to no screening and no adjuvant treatment. For ER-positive cases, adjuvant treatment made a higher relative contribution to breast cancer mortality reduction than screening, whereas for ER-negative cases the relative contributions were similar for screening and adjuvant treatment. ER-negative cases were less likely to be screen-detected than ER-positive cases (35.1% vs 51.2%), but when screen-detected yielded a greater survival gain (five-year breast cancer survival = 35.6% vs 30.7%). Screening biennially would have captured a lower proportion of mortality reduction than annual screening for ER-negative vs ER-positive cases (model range = 80.2%-87.8% vs 85.7%-96.5%). CONCLUSION As advances in risk assessment facilitate identification of women with increased risk of ER-negative breast cancer, additional mortality reductions could be realized through more frequent targeted screening, provided these benefits are balanced against screening harms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diego Munoz
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Aimee M Near
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Sandra J Lee
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Clyde B Schechter
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Oguzhan Alagoz
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Donald A Berry
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Elizabeth S Burnside
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Yaojen Chang
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Gary Chisholm
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Mehmet Ali Ergun
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Hui Huang
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Natasha K Stout
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Brian L Sprague
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Amy Trentham-Dietz
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Jeanne S Mandelblatt
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS)
| | - Sylvia K Plevritis
- Division of Biomedical Informatics Research (DM) and Department of Radiology (DM, SKP), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (DM); Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC (AMN, YC, JSM); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (NTvR, HJdK, EAMH); Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, MA (SJL, HH); Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (CBS); Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (OA, MAE); Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (ESB, ATD); University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DAB, GC); Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA (NKS); Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Vermont, VT (BLS).
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
de Carvalho TM, Heijnsdijk EAM, de Koning HJ. Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit. Int J Cancer 2014; 136:1600-7. [PMID: 25123412 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2014] [Accepted: 07/31/2014] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
While the benefit of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening is uncertain, a significant proportion of screen-detected cases is overdiagnosed. In order to make screening worthwhile, it is necessary to find policies that minimize overdiagnosis, without significantly increasing prostate cancer mortality (PCM). Using a microsimulation model (MISCAN) we project the outcomes of 83 screening policies in the US population, with different start and stop ages, screening frequencies, strategies where the PSA value changes the screening frequency, and strategies in which the PSA threshold (PSAt) increases with age. In the basecase strategy, yearly screening 50-74 with a PSAt of 3, the lifetime risk of PCM and overdiagnosis equals, respectively, 2.4 and 3.8%. The policies that reduce overdiagnosis the most (for maximum PCM increases relative to basecase of 1%, 3%, and 5%, respectively) are with a PSAt of 3, (1) yearly screening 50-74 where, if PSA <1 at age 65 or older, frequency becomes 4 years, with 3.6% (5.9% reduction), (2) 2-year screening 50-72, with 2.9% (24.3% reduction), and (3) yearly screening 50-70 (PSAt of 4 after age 66), with 2.2% (43.4% reduction). Stopping screening at age 70 is a reasonable way to reduce the harms and keep the benefit. Decreasing the stopping age has a larger effect on overdiagnosis reduction than reducing the screen frequency. Screening policies where the frequency of screening depends on PSA result or in which the PSAt changes with age did not substantially improve the balance of harms and benefits relative to simple yearly screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiago M de Carvalho
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
O'Mahony JF, van Rosmalen J, Mushkudiani NA, Goudsmit FW, Eijkemans MJC, Heijnsdijk EAM, Steyerberg EW, Habbema JDF. The influence of disease risk on the optimal time interval between screens for the early detection of cancer: a mathematical approach. Med Decis Making 2014; 35:183-95. [PMID: 24739535 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x14528380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The intervals between screens for the early detection of diseases such as breast and colon cancer suggested by screening guidelines are typically based on the average population risk of disease. With the emergence of ever more biomarkers for cancer risk prediction and the development of personalized medicine, there is a need for risk-specific screening intervals. The interval between successive screens should be shorter with increasing cancer risk. A risk-dependent optimal interval is ideally derived from a cost-effectiveness analysis using a validated simulation model. However, this is time-consuming and costly. We propose a simplified mathematical approach for the exploratory analysis of the implications of risk level on optimal screening interval. We develop a mathematical model of the optimal screening interval for breast cancer screening. We verified the results by programming the simplified model in the MISCAN-Breast microsimulation model and comparing the results. We validated the results by comparing them with the results of a full, published MISCAN-Breast cost-effectiveness model for a number of different risk levels. The results of both the verification and validation were satisfactory. We conclude that the mathematical approach can indicate the impact of disease risk on the optimal screening interval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James F O'Mahony
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (JFO'M, JvR, FWG, EAMH, EWS, JDFH),Department of Health Policy and Management, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland (JFO'M)
| | - Joost van Rosmalen
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (JFO'M, JvR, FWG, EAMH, EWS, JDFH),Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (JvR)
| | | | - Frans-Willem Goudsmit
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (JFO'M, JvR, FWG, EAMH, EWS, JDFH)
| | - Marinus J C Eijkemans
- Department of Biostatistics, UMC-University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (MJCE)
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (JFO'M, JvR, FWG, EAMH, EWS, JDFH)
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (JFO'M, JvR, FWG, EAMH, EWS, JDFH)
| | - J Dik F Habbema
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (JFO'M, JvR, FWG, EAMH, EWS, JDFH)
| |
Collapse
|