Literature DB >> 11414561

Estimation and prediction for cancer screening models using deconvolution and smoothing.

P F Pinsky1.   

Abstract

The model that specifies that cancer incidence, I, is the convolution of the preclinical incidence, g, and the density of time in the preclinical phase, f, has frequently been utilized to model data from cancer screening trials and to estimate such quantities as sojourn time, lead time, and sensitivity. When this model is fit to the above data, the parameters of f as well as the parameter(s) governing screening sensitivity must be estimated. Previously, g was either assumed to be equal to clinical incidence or assumed to be a constant or exponential function that also had to be estimated. Here we assume that the underlying incidence, I, in the study population (in the absence of screening) is known. With I known, g then becomes a function of f, which can be solved for using (numerical) deconvolution, thus eliminating the need to estimate g or make assumptions about it. Since numerical deconvolution procedures may be highly unstable, however, we incorporate a smoothing procedure that produces a realistic g function while still closely reproducing the original incidence function I upon convolution with f. We have also added the concept of competing mortality to the convolution model. This, along with the realistic preclinical incidence function described above, results in more accurate estimates of sojourn time and lead time and allows for estimation of quantities related to overdiagnosis, which we define here.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11414561     DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00389.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  10 in total

Review 1.  Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati; Leslie Mallinger; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Conditions for Valid Empirical Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis in Randomized Trials and Population Studies.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Eric J Feuer; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Modeling Disease Progression with Longitudinal Markers.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Ruth Etzioni; Christopher Morrell; Peter Müller
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.033

4.  RE: A model too far.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Oversimplifying overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Identifiability of the joint distribution of age and tumor size at detection in the presence of screening.

Authors:  Leonid Hanin; Andrei Yakovlev
Journal:  Math Biosci       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 2.144

7.  Estimated mean sojourn time associated with hemoccult SENSA for detection of proximal and distal colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Wenying Zheng; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 8.  Recognizing the Limitations of Cancer Overdiagnosis Studies: A First Step Towards Overcoming Them.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Quantifying the duration of the preclinical detectable phase in cancer screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sandra M E Geurts; Anne M W M Aarts; André L M Verbeek; Tony H H Chen; Mireille J M Broeders; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Epidemiol Health       Date:  2022-01-03

10.  A note on the catch-up time method for estimating lead or sojourn time in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Joost van Rosmalen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 2.373

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.