Literature DB >> 26538628

Cancer Models and Real-world Data: Better Together.

Jane J Kim1, Anna Na Tosteson2, Ann G Zauber2, Brian L Sprague2, Natasha K Stout2, Oguzhan Alagoz2, Amy Trentham-Dietz2, Katrina Armstrong2, Sandi L Pruitt2, Carolyn M Rutter2.   

Abstract

Decision-analytic models are increasingly used to inform health policy decisions. These models synthesize available data on disease burden and intervention effectiveness to project estimates of the long-term consequences of care, which are often absent when clinical or policy decisions must be made. While models have been influential in informing US cancer screening guidelines under ideal conditions, incorporating detailed data on real-world screening practice has been limited given the complexity of screening processes and behaviors throughout diverse health delivery systems in the United States. We describe the synergies that exist between decision-analytic models and health care utilization data that are increasingly accessible through research networks that assemble data from the growing number of electronic medical record systems. In particular, we present opportunities to enrich cancer screening models by grounding analyses in real-world data with the goals of projecting the harms and benefits of current screening practices, evaluating the value of existing and new technologies, and identifying the weakest links in the cancer screening process where efforts for improvement may be most productively focused. We highlight the example of the National Cancer Institute-funded consortium Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR), a collaboration to harmonize and analyze screening process and outcomes data on breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers across seven research centers. The pairing of models with such data can create more robust models to not only better inform policy but also inform health care systems about best approaches to improve the provision of cancer screening in the United States.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26538628      PMCID: PMC4907359          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv316

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  26 in total

1.  An evidence-based microsimulation model for colorectal cancer: validation and application.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; James E Savarino
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 4.254

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.  Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--7.

Authors:  David M Eddy; William Hollingworth; J Jaime Caro; Joel Tsevat; Kathryn M McDonald; John B Wong
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.

Authors:  Donald A Berry; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Dennis G Fryback; Lauren Clarke; Marvin Zelen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Andrei Y Yakovlev; J Dik F Habbema; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model.

Authors:  Dennis G Fryback; Natasha K Stout; Marjorie A Rosenberg; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Vipat Kuruchittham; Patrick L Remington
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

6.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  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

8.  A multilevel model of postmenopausal breast cancer incidence.

Authors:  Robert A Hiatt; Travis C Porco; Fengchen Liu; Kaya Balke; Allan Balmain; Janice Barlow; Dejana Braithwaite; Ana V Diez-Roux; Lawrence H Kushi; Mark M Moasser; Zena Werb; Gayle C Windham; David H Rehkopf
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-07-13       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Inefficiencies and High-Value Improvements in U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Practice: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jack Cuzick; Philip E Castle; William C Hunt; Alan Waxman; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 10.  Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; William E Barlow; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Marilyn M Schapira; Berta Geller; Donald L Weaver; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  9 in total

1.  Registry-based study of trends in breast cancer screening mammography before and after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Kenyon C Bolton; John L Mace; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Targeted Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Individuals.

Authors:  Pamela M Marcus; Andrew N Freedman; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening in Turkey, a Developing Country: Results from Bahçeşehir Mammography Screening Project.

Authors:  Vahit Özmen; Sibel Ö Gürdal; Neslihan Cabioğlu; Beyza Özcinar; A Nilüfer Özaydın; Arda Kayhan; Erkin Arıbal; Cennet Sahin; Pınar Saip; Oğuzhan Alagöz
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2017-07-01

4.  Cancer Models and Real-world Data: Better Together.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Anna Na Tosteson; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Oguzhan Alagoz; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Katrina Armstrong; Sandi L Pruitt; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Delayed Colonoscopy Following a Positive Fecal Test Result and Cancer Mortality.

Authors:  Anath A Flugelman; Nili Stein; Ori Segol; Idit Lavi; Lital Keinan-Boker
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2019-05-02

Review 6.  Cost-effectiveness of treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and associated metastases: an overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Vakaramoko Diaby; Reem D Almutairi; Aram Babcock; Richard K Moussa; Askal Ali
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 2.217

7.  Validation of a prognostic score for hidden cancer in unprovoked venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  Luis Jara-Palomares; Remedios Otero; David Jimenez; Juan Manuel Praena-Fernandez; Carme Font; Conxita Falga; Silvia Soler; David Riesco; Peter Verhamme; Manuel Monreal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  What cervical screening is appropriate for women who have been vaccinated against high risk HPV? A simulation study.

Authors:  Rebecca Landy; Peter Windridge; Matthew S Gillman; Peter D Sasieni
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  The emerging role of real-world data in advanced breast cancer therapy: Recommendations for collaborative decision-making.

Authors:  Paul Cottu; Scott David Ramsey; Oriol Solà-Morales; Patricia A Spears; Lockwood Taylor
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 4.380

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.