Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 38, Issue 1_suppl, 2018, Pages 3S-8S

  Alagoz, Oguzhan ^a   Berry, Donald A ^b   de Koning, Harry J ^c   Feuer, Eric J ^d   Lee, Sandra J ^e   Plevritis, Sylvia K ^f   Schechter, Clyde B ^g   Stout, Natasha K ^h   Trentham Dietz, Amy ⁱ   Mandelblatt, Jeanne S ^j  

^a University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

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

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

^j GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

breast cancer control; breast cancer epidemiology; cancer simulation; simulation models

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (U.S.); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85044324717     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17737507     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening, The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778–86.
2. Stewart B, Wild CP. World cancer report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO Press; 2015.
3. Mandelblatt JS, Fryback D, Weinstein M, Russell L, Gold M, Hadorn D. Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:551–8.
4. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(3):203–5.
5. Sox HC. Quality of life and guidelines for PSA screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(7):669–71.
6. Feuer EJ. Modeling the impact of adjuvant therapy and screening mammography on US breast cancer mortality between 1975 and 2000: introduction to the problem. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;(36):2–6.
7. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):733–743.
8. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin K, de Koning H, Miglioretti DL, Schechter C, Stout NK. Modeling report: collaborative modeling of U.S. breast cancer screening strategies: breast cancer: screening. 2015. Available from: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/modeling-report-collaborative-modeling-of-us-breast-cancer-1/breast-cancer-screening1
9. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):738–47.
10. Mandelblatt JS, Stout NK, Schechter CB. Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different US breast cancer screening strategies. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):215–25.
11. Mandelblatt JS, Near AM, Miglioretti DL. Common model inputs in collaborative breast cancer modeling. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):9–23.
12. 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.
13. van Ravesteyn NT, van den Broek JJ, Li X. Modeling ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): An overview of CISNET model approaches. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):126–139.
14. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784–92.
15. Munoz D, Near AM, van Ravesteyn NT. Effects of screening and systemic adjuvant therapy on ER-specific US breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2014;106(11):dju289.
16. 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(3):157–66.
17. Plevritis S, Munoz D, Kurian A. Contributions of screening and systemic therapy to molecular subtype-specific US breast cancer mortality from 2000 to 2010. Submitted for publication.
18. Cronin KA, Feuer EJ, Clarke LD, Plevritis SK. Impact of adjuvant therapy and mammography on US mortality from 1975 to 2000: comparison of mortality results from the CISNET breast cancer base case analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005;(36):112–21.
19. van Ravesteyn NT, van Lier L, 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(5):535–42.
20. Mandelblatt J, van Ravesteyn N, Schechter C. Which strategies reduce breast cancer mortality most? Cancer. 2013;119(14):2541–8.
21. 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;2012:241340.
22. Mittmann N, Stout NK, Lee P, Tosteson AN, Trentham-Dietz A, Alagoz O, Yaffe MJ. Total cost-effectiveness of mammography screening strategies. Health Reports. 2015;(12):16–25.
23. Sankatsing VD, Heijnsdijk EA, van Luijt PA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(8):1990–9.
24. 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(2):104–12.
25. 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(7):djv103.
26. Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(6):dju092.
27. Gangnon RE, Stout NK, Alagoz O, Hampton JM, Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A. Contribution of breast cancer to overall mortality for U.S. women. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):24–31.
28. Munoz D, Plevritis SK. Estimating breast cancer progression features and survival by molecular subtype in the absence of screening and treatment. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):32–43.
29. 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.
30. van den Broek JJ, van Ravesteyn NT, Heijnsdijk EA, de Koning H. Simulating the impact of risk-based screening and treatment on breast cancer outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):54–65.
31. 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.
32. Huang Xuelin, Li Y, Song J, Berry D. A Bayesian simulation model for breast cancer screening, incidence, treatment, and mortality. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):78–88.
33. 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.
34. Munoz D, Xu C, Plevritis SK. 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.
35. van den Broek JJ, van Ravesteyn NT, Mandelblatt JS. Comparing CISNET breast cancer incidence and mortality predictions to observed clinical trial results of mammography screening from ages 40 to 49. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):112–125.