Literature DB >> 21673186

A systematic comparison of microsimulation models of colorectal cancer: the role of assumptions about adenoma progression.

Karen M Kuntz1, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar2, Carolyn M Rutter3, Amy B Knudsen4, Marjolein van Ballegooijen2, James E Savarino3, Eric J Feuer5, Ann G Zauber6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As the complexity of microsimulation models increases, concerns about model transparency are heightened.
METHODS: The authors conducted model "experiments" to explore the impact of variations in "deep" model parameters using 3 colorectal cancer (CRC) models. All natural history models were calibrated to match observed data on adenoma prevalence and cancer incidence but varied in their underlying specification of the adenocarcinoma process. The authors projected CRC incidence among individuals with an underlying adenoma or preclinical cancer v. those without any underlying condition and examined the impact of removing adenomas. They calculated the percentage of simulated CRC cases arising from adenomas that developed within 10 or 20 years prior to cancer diagnosis and estimated dwell time-defined as the time from the development of an adenoma to symptom-detected cancer in the absence of screening among individuals with a CRC diagnosis.
RESULTS: The 20-year CRC incidence among 55-year-old individuals with an adenoma or preclinical cancer was 7 to 75 times greater than in the condition-free group. The removal of all adenomas among the subgroup with an underlying adenoma or cancer resulted in a reduction of 30% to 89% in cumulative incidence. Among CRCs diagnosed at age 65 years, the proportion arising from adenomas formed within 10 years ranged between 4% and 67%. The mean dwell time varied from 10.6 to 25.8 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Models that all match observed data on adenoma prevalence and cancer incidence can produce quite different dwell times and very different answers with respect to the effectiveness of interventions. When conducting applied analyses to inform policy, using multiple models provides a sensitivity analysis on key (unobserved) "deep" model parameters and can provide guidance about specific areas in need of additional research and validation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21673186      PMCID: PMC3424513          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11408730

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


  43 in total

1.  The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J S Mandel; T R Church; J H Bond; F Ederer; M S Geisser; S J Mongin; D C Snover; L M Schuman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-11-30       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Somnath Saha; Tom Hoerger; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Which colon cancer screening test? A comparison of costs, effectiveness, and compliance.

Authors:  S Vijan; E W Hwang; T P Hofer; R A Hayward
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  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

6.  Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  P C Prorok; G L Andriole; R S Bresalier; S S Buys; D Chia; E D Crawford; R Fogel; E P Gelmann; F Gilbert; M A Hasson; R B Hayes; C C Johnson; J S Mandel; A Oberman; B O'Brien; M M Oken; S Rafla; D Reding; W Rutt; J L Weissfeld; L Yokochi; J K Gohagan
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2000-12

7.  Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population.

Authors:  A L Frazier; G A Colditz; C S Fuchs; K M Kuntz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-10-18       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  A Sonnenberg; F Delcò; J M Inadomi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-10-17       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence.

Authors:  Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Baseline findings of the Italian multicenter randomized controlled trial of "once-only sigmoidoscopy"--SCORE.

Authors:  Nereo Segnan; Carlo Senore; Bruno Andreoni; Hugo Aste; Luigina Bonelli; Cristiano Crosta; Roberto Ferraris; Stefano Gasperoni; Angelo Penna; Mauro Risio; Francesco Paolo Rossini; Stefania Sciallero; Marco Zappa; Wendy S Atkin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-12-04       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  43 in total

1.  Optimal healthcare decision making under multiple mathematical models: application in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Dimitris Bertsimas; John Silberholz; Thomas Trikalinos
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2016-09-17

2.  Clarifying differences in natural history between models of screening: the case of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Carolyn M Rutter; Amy B Knudsen; Ann G Zauber; James E Savarino; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Rob Boer; Eric J Feuer; J Dik F Habbema; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Optimal colorectal cancer screening in states' low-income, uninsured populations—the case of South Carolina.

Authors:  Alex van der Steen; Amy B Knudsen; Frank van Hees; Gailya P Walter; Franklin G Berger; Virginie G Daguise; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Risk of Advanced Neoplasia Using the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool.

Authors:  Thomas F Imperiale; Menggang Yu; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Rebeka Tabbey; Elizabeth Glowinski; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  Imaging-based screening: understanding the controversies.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Pari V Pandharipande; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Development of new non-invasive tests for colorectal cancer screening: the relevance of information on adenoma detection.

Authors:  Ulrike Haug; Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 7.  Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; Thomas Rösch; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 66.675

8.  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

9.  No Evidence for Posttreatment Effects of Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation on Risk of Colorectal Adenomas in a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; John A Baron; Leila A Mott; Dennis J Ahnen; Roberd M Bostick; Jane C Figueiredo; Michael N Passarelli; Judy R Rees; Douglas J Robertson; Elizabeth L Barry
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2019-03-04

10.  Validation of Models Used to Inform Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: Accuracy and Implications.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Amy B Knudsen; Tracey L Marsh; V Paul Doria-Rose; Eric Johnson; Chester Pabiniak; Karen M Kuntz; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.