Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 38, Issue 1_suppl, 2018, Pages 126S-139S

  van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T ^a   van den Broek, Jeroen J ^a   Li, Xiaoxue ^b   Weedon Fekjær, Harald ^c   Schechter, Clyde B ^d   Alagoz, Oguzhan ^e   Huang, Xuelin ^f   Weaver, Donald L ^g   Burnside, Elizabeth S ^h   Punglia, Rinaa S ^b   de Koning, Harry J ^a   Lee, Sandra J ⁱ  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

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

^g UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

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

ⁱ HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer epidemiology; Cancer simulation; ductal carcinoma in situ; simulation models

Indexed keywords

AGED; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER REGISTRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE EXACERBATION; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL OVERUSE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (U.S.); PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85044310850     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17729358     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Allegra CJ, Aberle DR, Ganschow P. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference statement: Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ September 22-24, 2009. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:161–9.
2. Kerlikowske K. Epidemiology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010:139–41.
3. Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:170–8.
4. 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. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24:905–12.
5. Collins LC, Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer. 2005;103:1778–84.
6. Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Page DL. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer. 2005;103:2481–4.
7. Mokbel K, Cutuli B. Heterogeneity of ductal carcinoma in situ and its effects on management. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:756–65.
8. Esserman L, Yau C. Rethinking the standard for ductal carcinoma in situ treatment. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:881–3.
9. Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P. Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:888–96.
10. Allred DC. Ductal carcinoma in situ: terminology, classification, and natural history. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010:134–8.
11. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD. Choosing treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: Fine tuning the University of Southern California/Van Nuys Prognostic Index. JNCI Monographs. 2010;2010:193–6.
12. Kerlikowske K, Molinaro A, Cha I. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1692–702.
13. Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S. Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:739–45.
14. Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:701–10.
15. van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EA, Fracheboud J. The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:47.
16. van Ravesteyn NT, Stout NK, Schechter CB. Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Mandelblatt JS, Near AM, Miglioretti DL. Common model inputs used in CISNET collaborative breast cancer modeling. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):9–23.
21. Schechter CB, Near AM, Jayasekera J, Chang Y, Mandelblatt JS. Structure, function, and applications of the Georgetown–Einstein (GE) breast cancer simulation model. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):66–77.
22. 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):54–65.
23. Segnan N, Minozzi S, Armaroli P. Epidemiologic evidence of slow growing, nonprogressive or regressive breast cancer: A systematic review. Int J Cancer. 2016;139:554–73.
24. Burnside ES, Trentham-Dietz A, Kelcz F, Collins J. An example of breast cancer regression on imaging. Radiol Case Reports. 2006;1:27–37.
25. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 18 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases.
26. Larsen IK, Småstuen M, Johannesen TB. Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1218–31.
27. 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.
28. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin K, de Koning H, Miglioretti DL, Schechter CS, Stout N. Collaborative modeling of US breast cancer screening strategies. AHRQ Publication No. 14-05201-EF-4; 2015.
29. Gunsoy NB, Garcia-Closas M, Moss SM. Modelling the overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography screening in women aged 40 to 49 in the United Kingdom. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R152.
30. Ryser MD, Worni M, Turner EL, Marks JR, Durrett R, Hwang ES. Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Computational Risk Analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108.
31. Tan KH, Simonella L, Wee HL. Quantifying the natural history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:2035–43.
32. Yen MF, Tabar L, Vitak B, Smith RA, Chen HH, Duffy SW. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1746–54.
33. de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, de Koning HJ. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:111–21.
34. de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Fracheboud J, de Bruijn A. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:202.
35. Ozanne EM, Shieh Y, Barnes J, Bouzan C, Hwang ES, Esserman LJ. Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129:165–73.
36. Seigneurin A, Francois O, Labarere J, Oudeville P, Monlong J, Colonna M. Overdiagnosis from non-progressive cancer detected by screening mammography: stochastic simulation study with calibration to population based registry data. BMJ. 2011;343:d7017.
37. Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D. Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:109–14.
38. Baxter NN, Virnig BA, Durham SB, Tuttle TM. Trends in the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:443–8.
39. Shiyanbola OO, Sprague BL, Hampton JM. Emerging trends in surgical and adjuvant radiation therapies among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2016;122:2810–8.
40. Francis A, Fallowfield L, Rea D. The LORIS Trial: Addressing overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2015;27:6–8.
41. Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L. Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:2296–303.
42. Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L. Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - The LORD study. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1497–510.
43. Warner E, Causer PA, Wong JW. Improvement in DCIS detection rates by MRI over time in a high-risk breast screening study. Breast J. 2011;17:9–17.
44. Lehman CD. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ. JNCI Monographs. 2010;2010:150-1.
45. Kuhl CK. Why do purely intraductal cancers enhance on breast MR images?Radiology. 2009;253:281–3.