Literature DB >> 29554463

Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches.

Nicolien T van Ravesteyn1, Jeroen J van den Broek1, Xiaoxue Li2,3, Harald Weedon-Fekjær4, Clyde B Schechter5, Oguzhan Alagoz6, Xuelin Huang7, Donald L Weaver8, Elizabeth S Burnside9, Rinaa S Punglia10, Harry J de Koning1, Sandra J Lee3,11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be a precursor to invasive breast cancer. Since the advent of screening mammography in the 1980's, the incidence of DCIS has increased dramatically. The value of screen detection and treatment of DCIS, however, is a matter of controversy, as it is unclear the extent to which detection and treatment of DCIS prevents invasive disease and reduces breast cancer mortality. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of existing Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modelling Network (CISNET) modeling approaches for the natural history of DCIS, and to compare these to other modeling approaches reported in the literature.
DESIGN: Five of the 6 CISNET models currently include DCIS. Most models assume that some, but not all, lesions progress to invasive cancer. The natural history of DCIS cannot be directly observed and the CISNET models differ in their assumptions and in the data sources used to estimate the DCIS model parameters.
RESULTS: These model differences translate into variation in outcomes, such as the amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, with estimates ranging from 34% to 72% for biennial screening from ages 50 to 74 y. The other models described in the literature also report a large range in outcomes, with progression rates varying from 20% to 91%. LIMITATIONS: DCIS grade was not yet included in the CISNET models.
CONCLUSION: In the future, DCIS data by grade from active surveillance trials, the development of predictive markers of progression probability, and evidence from other screening modalities, such as tomosynthesis, may be used to inform and improve the models' representation of DCIS, and might lead to convergence of the model estimates. Until then, the CISNET model results consistently show a considerable amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, supporting the safety and value of observational trials for low-risk DCIS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer simulation; breast cancer epidemiology; ductal carcinoma in situ; simulation models

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29554463      PMCID: PMC5862063          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17729358

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  39 in total

1.  Rethinking the Standard for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Treatment.

Authors:  Laura Esserman; Christina Yau
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 31.777

2.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Breast Cancer Mortality After a Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Steven A Narod; Javaid Iqbal; Vasily Giannakeas; Victoria Sopik; Ping Sun
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 31.777

4.  Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial.

Authors:  Adele Francis; Jeremy Thomas; Lesley Fallowfield; Matthew Wallis; John M S Bartlett; Cassandra Brookes; Tracy Roberts; Sarah Pirrie; Claire Gaunt; Jennie Young; Lucinda Billingham; David Dodwell; Andrew Hanby; Sarah E Pinder; Andrew Evans; Malcolm Reed; Valerie Jenkins; Lucy Matthews; Maggie Wilcox; Patricia Fairbrother; Sarah Bowden; Daniel Rea
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy: results from the Nurses' Health Study.

Authors:  Laura C Collins; Rulla M Tamimi; Heather J Baer; James L Connolly; Graham A Colditz; Stuart J Schnitt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Melinda E Sanders; Peggy A Schuyler; William D Dupont; David L Page
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Computational Risk Analysis.

Authors:  Marc D Ryser; Mathias Worni; Elizabeth L Turner; Jeffrey R Marks; Rick Durrett; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 8.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes.

Authors:  Beth A Virnig; Todd M Tuttle; Tatyana Shamliyan; Robert L Kane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 9.  Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening.

Authors:  Rianne de Gelder; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jacques Fracheboud; Gerrit Draisma; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

10.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Jacques Fracheboud; Arry de Bruijn
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  10 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of mammography from a publicly funded health care system perspective.

Authors:  Nicole Mittmann; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-02-08

2.  Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; Sandra J Lee; Sylvia K Plevritis; Clyde B Schechter; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  The Dana-Farber CISNET Model for Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: An Update.

Authors:  Sandra J Lee; Xiaoxue Li; Hui Huang; Marvin Zelen
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Simulating the Impact of Risk-Based Screening and Treatment on Breast Cancer Outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia.

Authors:  Jeroen J van den Broek; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  The University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model: An Update.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Mucahit Cevik; Brian L Sprague; Dennis G Fryback; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Data Needs in Opioid Systems Modeling: Challenges and Future Directions.

Authors:  Mohammad S Jalali; Emily Ewing; Calvin B Bannister; Lukas Glos; Sara Eggers; Tse Yang Lim; Erin Stringfellow; Celia A Stafford; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Hawre Jalal; Reza Kazemi-Tabriz
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 7.  Reflecting on 20 years of breast cancer modeling in CISNET: Recommendations for future cancer systems modeling efforts.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christina Chapman; Xuelin Huang; Jinani Jayasekera; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Jennifer M Yeh; Sylvia K Plevritis; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 4.475

8.  Modeling the natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ based on population data.

Authors:  Sarocha Chootipongchaivat; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Xiaoxue Li; Hui Huang; Harald Weedon-Fekjær; Marc D Ryser; Donald L Weaver; Elizabeth S Burnside; Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Trade-Offs Between Harms and Benefits of Different Breast Cancer Screening Intervals Among Low-Risk Women.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Clyde B Schechter; John M Hampton; Oguzhan Alagoz; Jeroen J van den Broek; Karla Kerlikowske; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Harry J de Koning; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Personalizing Breast Cancer Screening Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.

Authors:  Jeroen J van den Broek; Clyde B Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; A Cecile J W Janssens; Michael C Wolfson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jacques Simard; Douglas F Easton; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Peter Kraft; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 11.816

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.