Literature DB >> 19663525

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

Natasha K Stout1, Amy B Knudsen, Chung Yin Kong, Pamela M McMahon, G Scott Gazelle.   

Abstract

Increasingly, computer simulation models are used for economic and policy evaluation in cancer prevention and control. A model's predictions of key outcomes, such as screening effectiveness, depend on the values of unobservable natural history parameters. Calibration is the process of determining the values of unobservable parameters by constraining model output to replicate observed data. Because there are many approaches for model calibration and little consensus on best practices, we surveyed the literature to catalogue the use and reporting of these methods in cancer simulation models. We conducted a MEDLINE search (1980 through 2006) for articles on cancer-screening models and supplemented search results with articles from our personal reference databases. For each article, two authors independently abstracted pre-determined items using a standard form. Data items included cancer site, model type, methods used for determination of unobservable parameter values and description of any calibration protocol. All authors reached consensus on items of disagreement. Reviews and non-cancer models were excluded. Articles describing analytical models, which estimate parameters with statistical approaches (e.g. maximum likelihood) were catalogued separately. Models that included unobservable parameters were analysed and classified by whether calibration methods were reported and if so, the methods used. The review process yielded 154 articles that met our inclusion criteria and, of these, we concluded that 131 may have used calibration methods to determine model parameters. Although the term 'calibration' was not always used, descriptions of calibration or 'model fitting' were found in 50% (n = 66) of the articles, with an additional 16% (n = 21) providing a reference to methods. Calibration target data were identified in nearly all of these articles. Other methodological details, such as the goodness-of-fit metric, were discussed in 54% (n = 47 of 87) of the articles reporting calibration methods, while few details were provided on the algorithms used to search the parameter space. Our review shows that the use of cancer simulation modelling is increasing, although thorough descriptions of calibration procedures are rare in the published literature for these models. Calibration is a key component of model development and is central to the validity and credibility of subsequent analyses and inferences drawn from model predictions. To aid peer-review and facilitate discussion of modelling methods, we propose a standardized Calibration Reporting Checklist for model documentation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19663525      PMCID: PMC2787446          DOI: 10.2165/11314830-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  161 in total

Review 1.  Simulation modeling of outcomes and cost effectiveness.

Authors:  S D Ramsey; M McIntosh; R Etzioni; N Urban
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.722

2.  Impact of systematic false-negative test results on the performance of faecal occult blood screening.

Authors:  F Loeve; R Boer; G J van Oortmarssen; M van Ballegooijen; J D Habbema
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Quantifying the potential benefit of CA 125 screening for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  S J Skates; D E Singer
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors: decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  P Das; A K Ng; C C Earle; P M Mauch; K M Kuntz
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2006-02-24       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  Modeling of long-term screening for lung carcinoma.

Authors:  O Y Gorlova; M Kimmel; C Henschke
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-09-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  U Ladabaum; C L Chopra; G Huang; J M Scheiman; M E Chernew; A M Fendrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-11-06       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 7.  A comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends.

Authors:  Lauren D Clarke; Sylvia K Plevritis; Rob Boer; Kathleen A Cronin; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

8.  Screening for melanoma by primary health care physicians: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  A Girgis; P Clarke; R C Burton; R W Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  The costs, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women.

Authors:  S J Goldie; M C Weinstein; K M Kuntz; K A Freedberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-01-19       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 10.  Genomic tests for ovarian cancer detection and management.

Authors:  Evan R Myers; Laura J Havrilesky; Shalini L Kulasingam; Gillian D Sanders; Kathryn E Cline; Rebecca N Gray; Andrew Berchuck; Douglas C McCrory
Journal:  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep)       Date:  2006-10
View more
  56 in total

1.  Targeted screening of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer: results of a simulation model.

Authors:  Pari V Pandharipande; Curtis Heberle; Emily C Dowling; Chung Yin Kong; Angela Tramontano; Katherine E Perzan; William Brugge; Chin Hur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Incorporating calibrated model parameters into sensitivity analyses: deterministic and probabilistic approaches.

Authors:  Douglas C A Taylor; Vivek Pawar; Denise T Kruzikas; Kristen E Gilmore; Myrlene Sanon; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Calibrating models in economic evaluation: a seven-step approach.

Authors:  Tazio Vanni; Jonathan Karnon; Jason Madan; Richard G White; W John Edmunds; Anna M Foss; Rosa Legood
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Is it time for reporting guidelines for calibration methods?

Authors:  Scott B Cantor
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Projecting the clinical benefits of adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation and selective salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a decision analysis.

Authors:  S P Elliott; T J Wilt; K M Kuntz
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 5.554

6.  Do economic evaluations of targeted therapy provide support for decision makers?

Authors:  Ilia L Ferrusi; Natasha B Leighl; Nathalie A Kulin; Deborah A Marshall
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.840

7.  Development, calibration, and validation of a U.S. white male population-based simulation model of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Chin Hur; Tristan J Hayeck; Jennifer M Yeh; Ethan M Richards; Ethan B Richards; Stuart J Spechler; G Scott Gazelle; Chung Yin Kong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Current challenges in health economic modeling of cancer therapies: a research inquiry.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Miller; Kathleen A Foley; Mason W Russell
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2014-05

9.  Multiobjective Calibration of Disease Simulation Models Using Gaussian Processes.

Authors:  Aditya Sai; Carolina Vivas-Valencia; Thomas F Imperiale; Nan Kong
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  A Need for Change! A Coding Framework for Improving Transparency in Decision Modeling.

Authors:  Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Eline M Krijkamp; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Hawre Jalal; Szu-Yu Zoe Kao; Alan Yang; Eva A Enns
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.