Literature DB >> 23383717

A semiparametric censoring bias model for estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test under dependent censoring.

Rebecca A Hubbard1, Diana L Miglioretti.   

Abstract

False-positive test results are among the most common harms of screening tests and may lead to more invasive and expensive diagnostic testing procedures. Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test result after repeat screening rounds is, therefore, important for evaluating potential screening regimens. Existing estimators of the cumulative false-positive risk are limited by strong assumptions about censoring mechanisms and parametric assumptions about variation in risk across screening rounds. To address these limitations, we propose a semiparametric censoring bias model for cumulative false-positive risk that allows for dependent censoring without specifying a fixed functional form for variation in risk across screening rounds. Simulation studies demonstrated that the censoring bias model performs similarly to existing models under independent censoring and can largely eliminate bias under dependent censoring. We used the existing and newly proposed models to estimate the cumulative false-positive risk and variation in risk as a function of baseline age and family history of breast cancer after 10 years of annual screening mammography using data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Ignoring potential dependent censoring in this context leads to underestimation of the cumulative risk of false-positive results. Models that provide accurate estimates under dependent censoring are critical for providing appropriate information for evaluating screening tests.
Copyright © 2013, The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23383717      PMCID: PMC3622119          DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01831.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  11 in total

1.  Inference in randomized studies with informative censoring and discrete time-to-event endpoints.

Authors:  D Scharfstein; J M Robins; W Eddings; A Rotnitzky
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gary R Cutter; William E Barlow
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.021

5.  The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  R L Prentice; J D Kalbfleisch; A V Peterson; N Flournoy; V T Farewell; N E Breslow
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Modelling the cumulative risk for a false-positive under repeated screening events.

Authors:  A E Gelfand; F Wang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  C L Christiansen; F Wang; M B Barton; W Kreuter; J G Elmore; A E Gelfand; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive test in a repeated screening program.

Authors:  Jian-Lun Xu; Richard M Fagerstrom; Philip C Prorok; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  7 in total

1.  Statistical Methods for Estimating the Cumulative Risk of Screening Mammography Outcomes.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Theodora M Ripping; Jessica Chubak; Mireille J M Broeders; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study to assess the importance of coexisting chronic conditions to clinical practice and policy: protocol for a multicentre observational study.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Shama D Karanth; Christopher G Slatore; Dongyu Zhang; Jiang Bian; Rafael Meza; Jihyoun Jeon; Martin Tammemagi; Mattthew Schabath; Meghann Wheeler; Yi Guo; Bruno Hochhegger; Frederic J Kaye; Gerard A Silvestri; Michael K Gould
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  The cumulative risk of false-positive fecal occult blood test after 10 years of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Eric Johnson; Raymond Hsia; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Towards personalized screening: Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes in women with and without a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Theodora Maria Ripping; Rebecca A Hubbard; Johannes D M Otten; Gerard J den Heeten; André L M Verbeek; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Nonhomogeneous Markov chain for estimating the cumulative risk of multiple false positive screening tests.

Authors:  Marzieh K Golmakani; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 1.701

6.  Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes according to the presence of previous benign breast disease and family history of breast cancer: supporting personalised screening.

Authors:  M Román; M J Quintana; J Ferrer; M Sala; X Castells
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Thao-Quyen H Ho; Michael C S Bissell; Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Brian L Sprague; Christoph I Lee; Jeffrey A Tice; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-03-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.