Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: The case of colorectal cancer

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 540-549

  Van Ballegooijen, Marjolein ^a   Rutter, Carolyn M ^b   Knudsen, Amy B ^c   Zauber, Ann G ^d   Savarino, James E ^b   Lansdorp Vogelaar, Iris ^a   Boer, Rob ^a   Feuer, Eric J ^e   Habbema, J Dik F ^a   Kuntz, Karen M ^f  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

colorectal cancer; microsimulation; natural history; screening models; standard model output

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; STANDARD; THEORETICAL MODEL;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 79960501113     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11408915     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Song K, Fendrick AM, Ladabaum U. Fecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004 ; 126 (5). 1270-9 (Pubitemid 38552791)
2. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, Zullo A, Kim DH, Morini S. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer. 2007 ; 109 (11). 2213-21 (Pubitemid 46801550)
3. Vijan S, Hwang EW, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance. Am J Med. 2001 ; 111 (8). 593-601 (Pubitemid 34088068)
4. Knudsen AB, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population. J Natl Cancer Institue. 2010 ; 102: 16
5. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Zauber AG, Boer R, Wilschut J, Habbema JD. At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach. Int J Cancer. 2009 ; 124: 1161-8
6. Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Wright TC. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 ; 103: 619-31 (Pubitemid 40459019)
7. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008 ; 148 (1). 1-10 (Pubitemid 351664941)
8. Kobayashi T, Goto R, Ito K, Mitsumori K. Prostate cancer screening strategies with re-screening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007 ; 33 (6). 783-9 (Pubitemid 47029676)
9. McMahon PM, Kong CY, Johnson BE, et al. Estimating long-term effectiveness of lung cancer screening in the Mayo CT screening study. Radiology. 2008 ; 248 (1). 278-87
10. Herman CR, Gill HK, Eng J, Fajardo LL. Screening for preclinical disease: test and disease characteristics. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 ; 179 (4). 825-31
11. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Gold MR Siegel JE Russel LB Weinstein MC, ed. New York: Oxford University Press ; 1996: 276-303.
12. Habbema JDF, Schechter CB, Cronin KA, Clarke LD, Feuer EJ. Modeling cancer natural history, epidemiology, and control: reflections on the CISNET breast group experience. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006 ; 36: 122-6
13. Kuntz KM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Rutter CM, et al. A systematic comparison of microsimulation models of colorectal cancer: the role of assumptions about adenoma progression. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31: 530-539
14. Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med. 1988 ; 319 (9). 525-32
15. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov), SEER*Stat Database: Incidence-SEER 9 Regs Public-Use, Nov 2003 Sub (1973-2001). Frederick, MD: National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch; 2004 (released April 2004, based on the November 2003 submission).
16. Rutter CM, Miglioretti DL, Yu OA. Hierarchical non-homogenous Poisson model for meta-analysis of adenoma counts. Stat Med. 2007 ; 26: 98-109 (Pubitemid 46099419)
17. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008 ; 134: 1570-95
18. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006 ; 56: 143-59 (Pubitemid 43847925)
19. Rutter CM, Savarino JE. An evidence-based microsimulation model for colorectal cancer: validation and application. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 ; 19: 1992-2002
20. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Wilschut J, van Ballegooijen M, Kuntz KM. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008 ; 149: 659-69
21. Janoschek A. Das reaktionskinetische Grundgesetz und seine Beziehungen zum Wachstumsund Ertragsgesetz. Stat Vjschr. 1957 ; 10: 25-37
22. Gille U, Salomon FV. Brain growth in mallards, Pekin and Muscovy ducks (Anatidae). J Zool. 2000 ; 252: 399-404
23. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010 ; 375 (9726). 1624-33