Comparative analysis of 5 lung cancer natural history and screening models that reproduce outcomes of the NLST and PLCO trials

Cancer

Volumn 120, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 1713-1724

  Meza, Rafael ^a   Ten Haaf, Kevin ^b   Kong, Chung Yin ^c,d   Erdogan, Ayca ^e   Black, William C ^f   Tammemagi, Martin C ^g   Choi, Sung Eun ^c,d   Jeon, Jihyoun ^h   Han, Summer S ^e   Munshi, Vidit ^c,d   Van Rosmalen, Joost ^b   Pinsky, Paul ⁱ   McMahon, Pamela M ^c,d   De Koning, Harry J ^b   Feuer, Eric J ⁱ   Hazelton, William D ^h   Plevritis, Sylvia K ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^g BROCK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^h Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

ⁱ NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET); cancer natural history models; comparative modeling analyses; low dose CT screening; lung cancer screening; simulation model; smoking and lung cancer

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; LOW ENERGY RADIATION; LUNG CANCER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIMULATION; SMOKING HABIT; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION PROCESS;

CANCER INTERVENTION AND SURVEILLANCE MODELING NETWORK (CISNET); CANCER NATURAL HISTORY MODELS; COMPARATIVE MODELING ANALYSES; LOW-DOSE CT SCREENING; LUNG CANCER SCREENING; SIMULATION MODEL; SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER;

CALIBRATION; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84901357963     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28623     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 395-409.
2. Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, et al; PLCO Project Team. Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA. 2011; 306: 1865-1873.
3. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012; 307: 2418-2429.
4. Bach PB, Gould MK,. When the average applies to no one: personalized decision making about potential benefits of lung cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 571-573.
5. Moolgavkar SH, Holford TR, Levy DT, et al. Impact of reduced tobacco smoking on lung cancer mortality in the United States during 1975-2000. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 104: 541-548.
6. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 687-696.
7. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 738-747.
8. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, et al. The prostate cancer conundrum revisited: treatment changes and prostate cancer mortality declines. Cancer. 2012; 118: 5955-5963.
9. Heijnsdijk EA, Wever EM, Auvinen A, et al. Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 595-605.
10. Feuer EJ, Etzioni R, Cronin KA, Mariotto A,. The use of modeling to understand the impact of screening on U.S. mortality: examples from mammography and PSA testing. Stat Methods Med Res. 2004; 13: 421-442.
11. 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.
12. McMahon PM, Hazelton WD, Kimmel M, Clarke LD,. Chapter 13: CISNET lung models: comparison of model assumptions and model structures. Risk Anal. 2012; 32 (suppl 1): S166-S178.
13. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al; ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003; 6: 9-17.
14. 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: 278-287.
15. McMahon PM, Kong CY, Johnson BE, et al. Chapter 9: the MGH-HMS lung cancer policy model: tobacco control versus screening. Risk Anal. 2012; 32 (suppl 1): S117-S124.
16. Meza R, Hazelton WD, Colditz GA, Moolgavkar SH,. Analysis of lung cancer incidence in the Nurses' Heath and the Health Professionals' Follow-Up Studies using a multistage carcinogenesis model. Cancer Causes Control. 2008; 19: 317-328.
17. Hazelton WD, Clements MS, Moolgavkar SH,. Multistage carcinogenesis and lung cancer mortality in 3 cohorts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005; 14: 1171-1181.
18. Hazelton WD, Goodman G, Rom WN, et al. Longitudinal multistage model for lung cancer incidence, mortality, and CT detected indolent and aggressive cancers. Math Biosci. 2012; 240: 20-34.
19. Schollnberger H, Manuguerra M, Bijwaard H, et al. Analysis of epidemiological cohort data on smoking effects and lung cancer with a multi-stage cancer model. Carcinogenesis. 2006; 27: 1432-1444.
20. Tammemagi MC, Lam SC, McWilliams AM, Sin DD,. Incremental value of pulmonary function and sputum DNA image cytometry in lung cancer risk prediction. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011; 4: 552-561.
21. Spitz MR, Hong WK, Amos CI, et al. A risk model for prediction of lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 715-726.
22. Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Med Decis Making. 2012; 32: 690-700.
23. Jeon J, Meza R, Krapcho M, Clarke LD, Byrne J, Levy DT,. Chapter 5: actual and counterfactual smoking prevalence rates in the U.S. population via microsimulation. Risk Anal. 2012; 32 (suppl 1): S51-S68.
24. Rosenberg MA, Feuer EJ, Yu B, et al. Chapter 3: cohort life tables by smoking status, removing lung cancer as a cause of death. Risk Anal. 2012; 32 (suppl 1): S25-S38.
25. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, et al; Fleischner Society. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005; 237: 395-400.
26. Rutter CM, Zaslavsky AM, Feuer EJ,. Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review. Med Decis Making. 2011; 31: 10-18.
27. Haiman CA, Stram DO, Wilkens LR, et al. Ethnic and racial differences in the smoking-related risk of lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 333-342.
28. Kenfield SA, Wei EK, Stampfer MJ, Rosner BA, Colditz GA,. Comparison of aspects of smoking among the four histological types of lung cancer. Tob Control. 2008; 17: 198-204.
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses-United States, 2000-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008; 57: 1226-1228.
30. Humphrey LL, Deffebach M, Pappas M, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 159: 411-420.
31. de Koning HJ, Meza R, Plevritis SK, et al. Benefits and Harms of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Programs for High-Risk Populations. AHRQ Pub. No. 13-05196-EF-2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.