Literature DB >> 27335532

A Utility/Cost Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Algorithms.

Craig K Abbey1, Yirong Wu2, Elizabeth S Burnside2, Adam Wunderlich3, Frank W Samuelson3, John M Boone4.   

Abstract

Breast cancer risk prediction algorithms are used to identify subpopulations that are at increased risk for developing breast cancer. They can be based on many different sources of data such as demographics, relatives with cancer, gene expression, and various phenotypic features such as breast density. Women who are identified as high risk may undergo a more extensive (and expensive) screening process that includes MRI or ultrasound imaging in addition to the standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) exam. Given that there are many ways that risk prediction may be accomplished, it is of interest to evaluate them in terms of expected cost, which includes the costs of diagnostic outcomes. In this work we perform an expected-cost analysis of risk prediction algorithms that is based on a published model that includes the costs associated with diagnostic outcomes (true-positive, false-positive, etc.). We assume the existence of a standard screening method and an enhanced screening method with higher scan cost, higher sensitivity, and lower specificity. We then assess expected cost of using a risk prediction algorithm to determine who gets the enhanced screening method under the strong assumption that risk and diagnostic performance are independent. We find that if risk prediction leads to a high enough positive predictive value, it will be cost-effective regardless of the size of the subpopulation. Furthermore, in terms of the hit-rate and false-alarm rate of the of the risk-prediction algorithm, iso-cost contours are lines with slope determined by properties of the available diagnostic systems for screening.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Risk prediction; breast cancer screening; diagnostic utility; expected cost

Year:  2016        PMID: 27335532      PMCID: PMC4913185          DOI: 10.1117/12.2217850

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng        ISSN: 0277-786X


  18 in total

1.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 4.446

Review 2.  ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature.

Authors:  Charles E Metz
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2007-10-27

3.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  ROC methodology in radiologic imaging.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  Estimating the relative utility of screening mammography.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Miguel P Eckstein; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Statistical power considerations for a utility endpoint in observer performance studies.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Frank W Samuelson; Brandon D Gallas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-04-20       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Comparative statistical properties of expected utility and area under the ROC curve for laboratory studies of observer performance in screening mammography.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Brandon D Gallas; John M Boone; Loren T Niklason; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Frank W Samuelson
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.