Literature DB >> 15860542

Robust modeling in screening studies: estimation of sensitivity and preclinical sojourn time distribution.

Yu Shen1, Marvin Zelen.   

Abstract

In early-detection clinical trials, quantities such as the sensitivity of the screening modality and the preclinical duration of the disease are important to describe the natural history of the disease and its interaction with a screening program. Assume that the schedule of a screening program is periodic and that the sojourn time in the preclinical state has a piecewise density function. Modeling the preclinical sojourn time distribution as a piecewise density function results in robust estimation of the distribution function. Our aim is to estimate the piecewise density function and the examination sensitivity using both generalized least squares and maximum likelihood methods. We carried out extensive simulations to evaluate the performance of the methods of estimation. The different estimation methods provide complimentary tools to obtain the unknown parameters. The methods are applied to three breast cancer early-detection trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15860542     DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxi030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Estimating the frequency of indolent breast cancer in screening trials.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Wenli Dong; Roman Gulati; Marc D Ryser; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.021

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.  Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study.

Authors:  Lurdes Y T Inoue; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin; Herbert B Carter; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 2.373

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.  Multistate models for the natural history of cancer progression.

Authors:  Li C Cheung; Paul S Albert; Shrutikona Das; Richard J Cook
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 9.075

7.  Breast cancer incidence and overdiagnosis in Catalonia (Spain).

Authors:  Montserrat Martinez-Alonso; Ester Vilaprinyo; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Montserrat Rue
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  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

9.  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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.