Literature DB >> 22302420

Simulation optimization of PSA-threshold based prostate cancer screening policies.

Daniel J Underwood1, Jingyu Zhang, Brian T Denton, Nilay D Shah, Brant A Inman.   

Abstract

We describe a simulation optimization method to design PSA screening policies based on expected quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Our method integrates a simulation model in a genetic algorithm which uses a probabilistic method for selection of the best policy. We present computational results about the efficiency of our algorithm. The best policy generated by our algorithm is compared to previously recommended screening policies. Using the policies determined by our model, we present evidence that patients should be screened more aggressively but for a shorter length of time than previously published guidelines recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22302420      PMCID: PMC3711512          DOI: 10.1007/s10729-012-9195-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci        ISSN: 1386-9620


  42 in total

1.  Prostate biopsy: how many cores are enough?

Authors:  Joseph C Presti
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. American Urological Association (AUA).

Authors: 
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.990

4.  Conservative management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  P T Scardino; J R Beck; B J Miles
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-06-23       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Optimization of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  L Gustafsson; H O Adami
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.506

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.  Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence.

Authors:  Gabriel P Haas; Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Richard F Jones; Vishal Chandan; Angel M Serio; Andrew J Vickers; Mary Jumbelic; Gregory Threatte; Rus Korets; Hans Lilja; Gustavo de la Roza
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis.

Authors:  Patrick J Bastian; Leslie A Mangold; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Mia Djulbegovic; Rebecca J Beyth; Molly M Neuberger; Taryn L Stoffs; Johannes Vieweg; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-09-14

10.  A population-based study of pain and quality of life during the year before death in men with prostate cancer.

Authors:  G Sandblom; P Carlsson; K Sennfält; E Varenhorst
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-03-22       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  5 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.  Note on "simulation optimization of PSA-threshold based prostate cancer screening policies".

Authors:  Daniel J Underwood; Jingyu Zhang; Brian T Denton; Nilay D Shah; Brant A Inman
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2013-05-03

3.  Designing optimal allocations for cancer screening using queuing network models.

Authors:  Justin Dean; Evan Goldberg; Franziska Michor
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 4.779

Review 4.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening - predictions of the ONCOTYROL prostate cancer outcome and policy model.

Authors:  Nikolai Mühlberger; Kristijan Boskovic; Murray D Krahn; Karen E Bremner; Willi Oberaigner; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Gaby Sroczynski; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 3.295

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.