Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 38, Issue 1_suppl, 2018, Pages 140S-150S

  van den Broek, Jeroen J ^a   van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T ^a   Mandelblatt, Jeanne S ^b   Huang, Hui ^c   Ergun, Mehmet Ali ^d   Burnside, Elizabeth S ^e   Xu, Cong ^f   Li, Yisheng ^g   Alagoz, Oguzhan ^d   Lee, Sandra J ^c   Stout, Natasha K ^h   Song, Juhee ^g   Trentham Dietz, Amy ^d   Plevritis, Sylvia K ^f   Moss, Sue M ⁱ   de Koning, Harry J ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^h HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

ⁱ QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

breast cancer models; CISNET; external validation; mammography trial simulation

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; TRENDS; TUMOR INVASION; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MORTALITY; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85044253397     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17718168     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:733–43.
2. Plevritis S, Munoz D, Kurian A. Estimating breast cancer survival by molecular subtype in the absence of screening and adjuvant treatment. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):32–43.
3. 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.
4. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005Oct27;353:1784–92.
5. Siu AL, On behalf of the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:279–96.
6. Mandelblatt JS, Near AM, Miglioretti DL, Munoz D, Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A. Common model inputs used in CISNET collaborative breast cancer modeling. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):9–23.
7. 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.
8. Independent U. K. Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.
9. American College of O-G. Practice bulletin no. 122: Breast cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:372–82.
10. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 Guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314:1599–614.
11. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106.
12. Anders CK, Fan C, Parker JS. Breast carcinomas arising at a young age: unique biology or a surrogate for aggressive intrinsic subtypes?J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:e18–20.
13. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.
14. Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368:2053–60.
15. Moss SM, Wale C, Smith R, Evans A, Cuckle H, Duffy SW. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1123–32.
16. Moss S, Thomas I, Evans A, Thomas B, Johns L, Trial Management G. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:949–54.
17. Kingston N, Thomas I, Johns L, Moss S, Trial Management G. Assessing the amount of unscheduled screening (“contamination”) in the control arm of the UK “Age” Trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:1132–6.
18. Johns LE, Moss SM, Trial Management G. Randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (‘Age’ trial): patterns of screening attendance. J Med Screen. 2010;17:37–43.
19. Johns LE, Moss SM, Age Trial Management G. False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (“Age” trial). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2758–64.
20. Moss S. A trial to study the effect on breast cancer mortality of annual mammographic screening in women starting at age 40. Trial Steering Group. J Med Screen. 1999;6:144–8.
21. van den Broek JJ, van Ravesteyn NT, Heijnsdijk EA, de Koning HJ. Simulating the impact of risk-based screening and treatment on breast cancer outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):32–43.
22. Munoz D, Xu C, Plevritis S. A molecular subtype-specific stochastic simulation model of US breast cancer incidence and mortality trends from 1975 to 2010. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):89–98.
23. Lee SJ, Li X, Huang H. The Dana-Farber CISNET model for breast cancer screening strategies: An update. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):44–53.
24. Huang X, Li Y, Song J, Berry DA. A Bayesian simulation model for breast cancer screening, incidence, treatment, and mortality. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):78–88.
25. Alagoz O, Ergun MA, Cevik M. The University of Wisconsin breast cancer epidemiology simulation model: An update. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):99–111.
26. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme & British Association of Surgical Oncology. Audit of screen detected breast cancers. 2000–2007. Available at: http://associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/audit/nhs-breast-screening-programme-audit/
27. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G, Peto R, Davies C. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012;379:432–44.
28. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Int Med. 2009;151:738–47.
29. van den Broek JJ, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M. Comparing CISNET breast cancer models using the maximum clinical incidence reduction methodology. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):112–125.