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. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Research Support Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 5. Departments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. 6. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 8. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 11. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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