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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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