BACKGROUND: The current study was undertaken to evaluate the spatiotemporal projection models applied by the American Cancer Society to predict the number of new cancer cases. METHODS: Adaptations of a model that has been used since 2007 were evaluated. Modeling is conducted in 3 steps. In step I, ecologic predictors of spatiotemporal variation are used to estimate age-specific incidence counts for every county in the country, providing an estimate even in those areas that are missing data for specific years. Step II adjusts the step I estimates for reporting delays. In step III, the delay-adjusted predictions are projected 4 years ahead to the current calendar year. Adaptations of the original model include updating covariates and evaluating alternative projection methods. Residual analysis and evaluation of 5 temporal projection methods were conducted. RESULTS: The differences between the spatiotemporal model-estimated case counts and the observed case counts for 2007 were < 1%. After delays in reporting of cases were considered, the difference was 2.5% for women and 3.3% for men. Residual analysis indicated no significant pattern that suggested the need for additional covariates. The vector autoregressive model was identified as the best temporal projection method. CONCLUSIONS: The current spatiotemporal prediction model is adequate to provide reasonable estimates of case counts. To project the estimated case counts ahead 4 years, the vector autoregressive model is recommended to be the best temporal projection method for producing estimates closest to the observed case counts.
BACKGROUND: The current study was undertaken to evaluate the spatiotemporal projection models applied by the American Cancer Society to predict the number of new cancer cases. METHODS: Adaptations of a model that has been used since 2007 were evaluated. Modeling is conducted in 3 steps. In step I, ecologic predictors of spatiotemporal variation are used to estimate age-specific incidence counts for every county in the country, providing an estimate even in those areas that are missing data for specific years. Step II adjusts the step I estimates for reporting delays. In step III, the delay-adjusted predictions are projected 4 years ahead to the current calendar year. Adaptations of the original model include updating covariates and evaluating alternative projection methods. Residual analysis and evaluation of 5 temporal projection methods were conducted. RESULTS: The differences between the spatiotemporal model-estimated case counts and the observed case counts for 2007 were < 1%. After delays in reporting of cases were considered, the difference was 2.5% for women and 3.3% for men. Residual analysis indicated no significant pattern that suggested the need for additional covariates. The vector autoregressive model was identified as the best temporal projection method. CONCLUSIONS: The current spatiotemporal prediction model is adequate to provide reasonable estimates of case counts. To project the estimated case counts ahead 4 years, the vector autoregressive model is recommended to be the best temporal projection method for producing estimates closest to the observed case counts.
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Haley Gittleman; Peter M de Blank; Jonathan L Finlay; James G Gurney; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Duncan S Stearns; Johannes E Wolff; Max Liu; Yingli Wolinsky; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Haley Gittleman; Peter Liao; Toni Vecchione-Koval; Yingli Wolinsky; Carol Kruchko; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Arunark Kolipaka; Samuel Schroeder; Xiaokui Mo; Zarine Shah; Phil A Hart; Darwin L Conwell Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Benmei Liu; Li Zhu; Rebecca L Siegel; Eric J Feuer; Joe Zou; Huann-Sheng Chen; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 4.090