A simulation model investigating the impact of tumor volume doubling time and mammographic tumor detectability on screening outcomes in women aged 40-49 years

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 102, Issue 16, 2010, Pages 1263-1271

  Bailey, Stephanie L ^a   Sigal, Bronislava M ^a   Plevritis, Sylvia K ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIMULATION; TUMOR GROWTH; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SEER PROGRAM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR BURDEN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77955933964     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq271     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359(9310):909-919.
2. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(18):1490-1499.
3. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet. 1999;353(9168):1903-1908.
4. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L. Current results of the breast cancer screening randomized trial: the Health Insurance Plan (HIP) of greater New York study. In: Day NE, Miller AB, eds. Screening for Breast Cancer.Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Hans Huber; 1988:3-15.
5. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(5, pt 1):347-360.
6. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38(4):625-651.
7. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Effcacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer. 1995;75(10):2507-2517.
8. Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997; 22:27-30.
9. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study\I, breast cancer mortality after 11-16 years of follow-up in women age 40-49. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(5, pt 1):305-312.
10. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2003-2004. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society. https://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/ @nho/documents/document/caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2008.
11. Carney P, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(138):168-175.
12. Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM, et al. Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(2):743-749.
13. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081-1087.
14. Buist DSM, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin S, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(19):1432-1440.
15. Plevritis SK, Sigal BM, Salzman P, Rosenberg J, Glynn P. Chapter 12: a stochastic simulation model of U.S. breast cancer mortality trends from 1975 to 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;36:86-95.
16. Nelder JA, Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J. 1965;7(4):308-313.
17. Vachon CM, et al. Longitudinal trends in mammographic percent density and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epi Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(5):921-928.
18. Kerlikowske K, et al. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammo-graphic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(5):386-395.
19. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus flm mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
20. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(1): 1-10.
21. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-2163.
22. Peer PG, van Dijck JA, Hendriks JH, Holland R, Verbeek AL. Age-dependent growth rate of primary breast cancer. Cancer. 1993;71(11):3547-3551.
23. Spratt JS, Meyer JS, Spratt JA. Rates of growth of human neoplasms: Part II. J Surg Oncol. 1996;61(1):68-83.
24. Tan SYGL, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Koning HJ, Boer R, Habbema JDF. Chapter 9: the MISCAN-Fadia continuous tumor growth model for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;36:56-65.
25. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(21):1622-1629.
26. Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(10):798-808.