Late detection of breast and colorectal cancer in Minnesota counties: An application of spatial smoothing and clustering

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 113-127

  Thomas, Avis J ^a   Carlin, Bradley P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian methods; Conditionally autoregressive (CAR) prior; Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC); Spatial scan statistic

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATISTICS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED STATES;

BAYES THEOREM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; MINNESOTA; POPULATION DENSITY; SMALL-AREA ANALYSIS;

EID: 0037438319     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1215     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Centers for Disease Control. Website http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorctl/awareness.htm
2. National Cancer Institute. Website http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dbdata01/mn-db0101.pdf
3. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, Ederer F, Geisser MS, Mongin SJ, Snover DC, Schuman LM. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 343:1603-1607.
4. National Cancer Institute. Website http://cancernet.nci.nih.gov/cancer_types/breast_cancer.shtml
5. Sheehan TJ, Gershman ST, MacDougall LA, Danley RA, Mroszczyk M, Sorensen AM, Kulldorff M. Geographic assessment of breast cancer screening by towns, zip codes and census tracts. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 2000; 6(6):48-57.
6. Colette HJ, Waard JJ, Rombach, Colhette C, Day NE, Further evidence of benefits of a (nonrandomized) breast cancer screening program: The DOM project. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1992; 46:382-386.
7. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Raesen R. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1982; 69:349-355.
8. Habbema JD, Van Oortmarssen GJ, Van Putten DJ, Lubbe JT, van der Waas PJ. Age-specific reduction in breast cancer mortality by screening: an analysis of the results of the health insurance plan of greater New York study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1986; 77(2):317-320.
9. Chu K, Smart C, Tarone R. Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the health insurance plan clinical trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1988; 80(14):1125-1132.
10. Berry DA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1998; 90:1431-1439.
11. Cancer Surveillance and Control Program. Case completeness and data quality audit: Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System 1994-1995. Technical report, Minnesota Department of Health, 1997.
12. Gelfand AE, Smith AFM. Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1990; 85:398-409.
13. Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Gilks WR. BUGS: Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling, Version 0.50. Technical report, Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge University, 1995 (website: www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/welcome.shtml).
14. Carlin BP, Louis TA. Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis. 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2000; Section 5.4.
15. Clayton DG, Kaldor JM. Empirical Bayes estimates of age-standardized relative risks for use in disease mapping. Biometrics 1987; 43:671-681.
16. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best N, Carlin BP, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 2002; to appear (with discussion).
17. Gelfand AE, Trevisani M. Inequalities between expected marginal log likelihoods with implications for model comparison. Technical report, Department of Statistics, University of Connecticut, 2001.
18. Kulldorff M, Nagarwalla N. Spatial disease clusters: detection and inference. Statistics in Medicine 1995; 14: 799-810.
19. Robinson WS. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review 1950; 15:351-357.
20. Piantadosi S, Byar DP, Green SB. The ecological fallacy. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988; 127:893-904.
21. Carlin BP, Louis TA. Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis. 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2000; Section 2.3.3.
22. Hansen KM. Headbanging: robust smoothing in the plane. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 1991; 29:369-378.
23. Mungiole M, Pickle LW, Simonsen KH. Application of a weighted head-banging algorithm to mortality data maps. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18:3201-3209.
24. Waller LA, Tumbull BW, Clark LC, Nasca P. Spatial pattern analyses to detect rare disease clusters. In Case Studies in Biometry, Lange N, Ryan L, Billard L, Brillinger D, Conquest L, Greenhouse J (eds). Wiley: New York, 1994; 3-23.
25. Kim H, Sun D, Tsutakawa RK. A bivariate Bayes method for improving the estimates of mortality rates with a two-fold conditional autoregressive model. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2001; 96:1506-1521.
26. Waller LA, Carlin BP, Xia H, Gelfand AE. Hierarchical spatio-temporal mapping of disease rates. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1997; 92:607-617.