Structure, Function, and Applications of the Georgetown–Einstein (GE) Breast Cancer Simulation Model

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 38, Issue 1_suppl, 2018, Pages 66S-77S

  Schechter, Clyde B ^a   Near, Aimee M ^b   Jayasekera, Jinani ^b   Chandler, Young ^b   Mandelblatt, Jeanne S ^b  

^a ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer; simulation modeling

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR;

AGED; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PROTO ONCOGENE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FEMALE; GENES, ERBB-2; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 85040637440     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17698685     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Timmermans S, Mauck A. The promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine. Health Aff2005;24:18–28.
2. Institute of Medicine. A foundation of evidence-driven practice: a rapid learning system for cancer care: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. doi:10.17226/12868.2010.
3. Institute of Medicine. Evidence-Based Medicine and the Changing Nature of Health Care: Meeting Summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008. doi:10.17226/12041.2016.
4. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Rockville, MD. Available from: URL: http://ahrq.gov/health-care-information/topics/topic-evidencebased-medicine.html. Accessed May 2016.
5. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Integrating large-scale genomic information into clinical practice: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2011. Available from: URL: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/integrating-Large-Scale-Genomic-Information-into-Clinical-Practice.aspx. Accessed August 2012.
6. Institute of Medicine2009. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available from: URL: http://www.nap.edu/read/12648/chapter/1#ii. Accessed May 2016.
7. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Seibert U, Kuntz K. Modeling good research practices - overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:667–77.
8. Mandelblatt JS, Schechter CB, Yabroff KR. Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2554–66.
9. Mandelblatt JS, Schechter CB, Yabroff KR. Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:487–96.
10. van Ravesteyn NT, Schechter CB, Near AM. Race-specific impact of natural history, mammography screening, and adjuvant treatment on breast cancer mortality rates in the United States. Can Epi Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:112–22.
11. Chang Y, Schechter CB, van Ravesteyn NT. Collaborative modeling of the impact of obesity on race-specific breast cancer incidence and mortality. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136:823–35.
12. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Gulati R, Mariotto AB. Personalizing age of cancer screening cessation based on comorbid conditions: model estimates of harms and benefits. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:104–12.
13. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. New Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784–92.
14. Holford TR, Cronin KA, Mariotto AB, Feuer EJ. Changing patterns in breast cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006:19–25.
15. Gangnon RE, Sprague BL, Stout NK. The contribution of mammography screening to breast cancer incidence trends in the United States: an updated age-period-cohort model. Can Epi Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24:905–12.
16. International Standards Organization. International Standard ISO/IEC 14882:2011. Information Technology – Programming Language – C++. 3rd ed.
17. Mandelblatt JS, Near AM, Miglioretti DL. Common model inputs in collaborative breast cancer modeling. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):9–23.
18. Matsumotto M, Nishimura T. “Mersenne Twister: A 623-Dimensionally Equidistributed Uniform Pseudorandom Number Generator.” ACM Transaction on Modeling and Computer Simulation. 1998;8:3–30. Available from: URL: http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~m-mat/MT/ARTICLES/mt.pdf.
19. Feurer EJ, Wun LM. How much of the recent rise in breast cancer incidence can be explained by increase in mammography utilization? A dynamic population model approach. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136:1423–36.
20. Cronin KA, Mariotto AB, Clarke LD, Feuer EJ. Additional common inputs for analyzing impact of adjuvant therapy and mammography on U.S. mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;26–9.
21. Cronin KA, Yu B, Krapcho M. Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16:701–12.
22. Mandelblatt J, Cronin K, Bailey S. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Inten Med. 2009;151:738–47.
23. Mandelblatt JS, Stout NK, Schechter CB. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:215–25.
24. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716–26.
25. van Ravesteyn NT, Miglioretti DL, Stout NK. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:609–17.
26. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin K, de Koning H, Miglioretti DL, Schechter CS, Stout N. Collaborative modeling of U.S. breast cancer screening strategies. AHRQ Publication No. 14-05201-EF-4. Rockville, MD: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; 2015. Available from: URL: www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/modeling-report-collaborative-modeling-of-us-breast-cancer-1/breast-cancer-screening1. Accessed on 4 May 2015.
27. van Ravesteyn NT, van LL, Schechter CB. 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.
28. Mandelblatt J, van Ravesteyn N, Schechter C. Which strategies reduce breast cancer mortality most? Collaborative modeling of optimal screening, treatment, and obesity prevention. Cancer. 2013;119:2541–8.
29. Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:157–66.
30. Walter SD, Day NE. Estimation of the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data. Am J Epidemiol. 1983;118:865–86.
31. Near AM, Mandelblatt JS, Schechter CB, Stoto MA. Using Simulation Modeling to Inform Strategies to Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality in Black Women in the District of Columbia. Epidemiol Res Int 2012.