Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Models Using the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction Methodology

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 38, Issue 1_suppl, 2018, Pages 112S-125S

  van den Broek, Jeroen J ^a   van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T ^a   Mandelblatt, Jeanne S ^b   Cevik, Mucahit ^c   Schechter, Clyde B ^d   Lee, Sandra J ^e   Huang, Hui ^e   Li, Yisheng ^f   Munoz, Diego F ^g   Plevritis, Sylvia K ^g   de Koning, Harry J ^a   Stout, Natasha K ^h   van Ballegooijen, Marjolein ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

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

^g STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer natural history assumptions; maximum clinical incidence reduction; screening effectiveness

Indexed keywords

AGED; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER REGISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE EXACERBATION; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85044340348     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17743244     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Huang X, Li Y, Song J, Berry DA. A Bayesian simulation model for breast cancer screening, incidence, treatment, and mortality. An update. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):78–88.
5. 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):78–88.
6. Alagoz O, Ergun MA, Cevik M. The University Of Wisconsin breast cancer epidemiology simulation model: An update. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):78–88.
7. 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.
8. Trentham-Dietz A, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK. Tailoring breast cancer screening intervals by breast density and risk for women aged 50 years or older: Collaborative modeling of screening outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:700–12.
9. 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(4):215–25.
10. 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.
11. 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:dju092.
12. 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. 2014;106(11).
13. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784–92.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. van Ballegooijen M, Rutter CM, Knudsen AB. Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: the case of colorectal cancer. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:540–9.
17. Walter SD, Day NE. Estimation of the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data. Am J Epidemiol. 1983;118:865–86.
18. 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.
19. Mandelblatt JS, Near AM, Miglioretti DL. Common model inputs used in CISNET collaborative breast cancer modeling. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):9–23.
20. 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.
21. Clarke LD, Plevritis SK, Boer R, Cronin KA, Feuer EJ. A comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006;(36):96–105.
22. Boer R, Plevritis S, Clarke L. Diversity of model approaches for breast cancer screening: a review of model assumptions by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Groups. Stat Methods Med Res. 2004;13:525–38.
23. Burnside E, Lee SJ, Bennette C. Using collaborative simulation modeling to develop a web-based tool to support Policy-level Decision-making about breast cancer screening initiation age. Med Decis Mak Policy Prac. In Press. 2017.
24. 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.