Literature DB >> 21406620

How does early detection by screening affect disease progression? Modeling estimated benefits in prostate cancer screening.

Elisabeth M Wever1, Gerrit Draisma1, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk1, Harry J de Koning1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Simulation models are essential tools for estimating benefits of cancer screening programs. Such models include a screening-effect model that represents how early detection by screening followed by treatment affects disease-specific survival. Two commonly used screening-effect models are the stage-shift model, where mortality benefits are explained by the shift to more favorable stages, and the cure model, where early detection enhances the chances of cure from disease.
OBJECTIVE: This article describes commonly used screening-effect models and analyses their predicted mortality benefit in a model for prostate cancer screening.
METHOD: The MISCAN simulation model was used to predict the reduction of prostate cancer mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Rotterdam. The screening-effect models were included in the model. For each model the predictions of prostate cancer mortality reduction were calculated. The study compared 4 screening-effect models, which are versions of the stage-shift model or the cure model.
RESULTS: The stage-shift models predicted, after a follow-up of 9 years, reductions in prostate cancer mortality varying from 38% to 63% for ERSPC-Rotterdam compared with a 27% reduction observed in the ERSPC. The cure models predicted reductions in prostate cancer mortality varying from 21% to 27%.
CONCLUSIONS: The differences in predicted mortality reductions show the importance of validating models to observed trial mortality data. The stage-shift models considerably overestimated the mortality reduction. Therefore, the stage-shift models should be used with care, especially when modeling the effect of screening for cancers with long lead times, such as prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21406620      PMCID: PMC4789305          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10396717

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  23 in total

1.  Progress in cancer screening over a decade: results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys.

Authors:  N Breen; D K Wagener; M L Brown; W W Davis; R Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-11-21       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies.

Authors:  M Elske van den Akker-van Marle; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Gerrit J van Oortmarssen; Rob Boer; J Dik F Habbema
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-02-06       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; William F Lawrence; Sharita Mizell Womack; Denise Jacobson; Bin Yi; Yi-ting Hwang; Karen Gold; James Barter; Keerti Shah
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-05-08       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  A stochastic simulation model of U.S. breast cancer mortality trends from 1975 to 2000.

Authors:  Sylvia K Plevritis; Bronislava M Sigal; Peter Salzman; Jarrett Rosenberg; Peter Glynn
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

5.  The SPECTRUM population model of the impact of screening and treatment on U.S. breast cancer trends from 1975 to 2000: principles and practice of the model methods.

Authors:  Jeanne Mandelblatt; Clyde B Schechter; William Lawrence; Bin Yi; Jennifer Cullen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

Review 6.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Durado Brooks; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial.

Authors:  Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-08-11       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Aniko Szabo; Seth Falcon; Jake Wegelin; Dante DiTommaso; Kent Karnofski; Roman Gulati; David F Penson; Eric Feuer
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Peter C Albertsen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-08-31       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  19 in total

1.  Evaluating Parameter Uncertainty in a Simulation Model of Cancer Using Emulators.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Luc Coffeng; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Cost-effectiveness of combined serum anti-Helicobacter pylori IgG antibody and serum pepsinogen concentrations for screening for gastric cancer risk in Japan.

Authors:  Shota Saito; Motoi Azumi; Yusuke Muneoka; Katsuhiko Nishino; Takashi Ishikawa; Yuichi Sato; Shuji Terai; Kouhei Akazawa
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-05-26

3.  The Effect of Treatment Advances on the Mortality Results of Breast Cancer Screening Trials: A Microsimulation Model.

Authors:  Jeanette Birnbaum; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Elan Markowitz; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Using Active Learning for Speeding up Calibration in Simulation Models.

Authors:  Mucahit Cevik; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mark Craven; Oguzhan Alagoz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Screening for prostate cancer in the US? Reduce the harms and keep the benefit.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study.

Authors:  Tanner J Caverly; Pianpian Cao; Rodney A Hayward; Rafael Meza
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  The impact of PLCO control arm contamination on perceived PSA screening efficacy.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Elisabeth M Wever; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jeffrey Katcher; Harry J de Koning; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 2.506

8.  Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; John L Gore; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: overview and update.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2013-03

10.  Estimating the risks and benefits of active surveillance protocols for prostate cancer: a microsimulation study.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-06-26       Impact factor: 5.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.