Literature DB >> 15587432

The use of modeling to understand the impact of screening on U.S. mortality: examples from mammography and PSA testing.

Eric J Feuer1, Ruth Etzioni, Kathleen A Cronin, Angela Mariotto.   

Abstract

Surveillance data represent a vital resource for understanding the impact of cancer control interventions on the population cancer burden. However, population cancer trends are a complex product of many factors, and estimating the contribution of any one of these factors can be challenging. Surveillance modeling is a technique for estimating the contribution of one or more interventions of interest to trends in disease incidence and mortality. In this article, we present several approaches to surveillance modeling of cancer screening interventions. We classify models as biological or epidemiological, depending on whether they model the full unobservable aspects of disease onset and progression, or models which reduce the complex process to simpler terms by summarizing portions of the disease process using mostly observed population level measures. We also describe differences between macrolevel models, microsimulation models and mechanistic models. We discuss procedures for model calibration and validation, and methods for presenting model results which are robust with respect to certain types of biased model estimates. As examples, we present several models of the impact of mammography screening on breast cancer mortality, and PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality. Both these examples are appropriate uses of surveillance modeling, even though for mammography there is extensive (although somewhat controversial) randomized trial evidence, whereas for PSA this biomarker has seen extensive use as a screening test prior to any controlled trial evidence of its efficacy. Some of the models presented here were developed as part of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15587432     DOI: 10.1191/0962280204sm376ra

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  20 in total

1.  Calibrating disease progression models using population data: a critical precursor to policy development in cancer control.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Lurdes Inoue; Jeffrey Katcher; William Hazelton; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 2.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programmes : a focused review of modelling approaches.

Authors:  Sun-Young Kim; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Amy B Knudsen; Chung Yin Kong; Pamela M McMahon; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Breast cancer screening, area deprivation, and later-stage breast cancer in Appalachia: does geography matter?

Authors:  Roger T Anderson; Tse-Chang Yang; Stephen A Matthews; Fabian Camacho; Teresa Kern; Heath B Mackley; Gretchen Kimmick; Christopher Louis; Eugene Lengerich; Nengliang Yao
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Alan M Zaslavsky; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Age-period-cohort models in cancer surveillance research: ready for prime time?

Authors:  Philip S Rosenberg; William F Anderson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Adopting helical CT screening for lung cancer: potential health consequences during a 15-year period.

Authors:  Pamela M McMahon; Chung Yin Kong; Milton C Weinstein; Angela C Tramontano; Lauren E Cipriano; Bruce E Johnson; Jane C Weeks; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Novel diagnostic biomarkers for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chikezie O Madu; Yi Lu
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 4.207

9.  Comparative analysis of 5 lung cancer natural history and screening models that reproduce outcomes of the NLST and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Rafael Meza; Kevin ten Haaf; Chung Yin Kong; Ayca Erdogan; William C Black; Martin C Tammemagi; Sung Eun Choi; Jihyoun Jeon; Summer S Han; Vidit Munshi; Joost van Rosmalen; Paul Pinsky; Pamela M McMahon; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; William D Hazelton; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Early detection of breast cancer: new biomarker tests on the horizon?

Authors:  Aparna C Jotwani; Julie R Gralow
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 4.074

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.