Jeroen J van den Broek1, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn1, Jeanne S Mandelblatt2, Hui Huang3, Mehmet Ali Ergun4, Elizabeth S Burnside5, Cong Xu6, Yisheng Li7, Oguzhan Alagoz4, Sandra J Lee3, Natasha K Stout8, Juhee Song7, Amy Trentham-Dietz4, Sylvia K Plevritis6, Sue M Moss9, Harry J de Koning1. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Oncology, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington DC, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 8. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Department of cancer prevention, Wolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The UK Age trial compared annual mammography screening of women ages 40 to 49 years with no screening and found a statistically significant breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up but not at the 17-year follow-up. The objective of this study was to compare the observed Age trial results with the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer model predicted results. METHODS: Five established CISNET breast cancer models used data on population demographics, screening attendance, and mammography performance from the Age trial together with extant natural history parameters to project breast cancer incidence and mortality in the control and intervention arm of the trial. RESULTS: The models closely reproduced the effect of annual screening from ages 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence. Restricted to breast cancer deaths originating from cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase, the models estimated an average 15% (range across models, 13% to 17%) breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up compared with 25% (95% CI, 3% to 42%) observed in the trial. At the 17-year follow-up, the models predicted 13% (range, 10% to 17%) reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with the non-significant 12% (95% CI, -4% to 26%) in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: The models underestimated the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality at the 10-year follow-up. Overall, the models captured the observed long-term effect of screening from age 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence and mortality in the UK Age trial, suggesting that the model structures, input parameters, and assumptions about breast cancer natural history are reasonable for estimating the impact of screening on mortality in this age group.
BACKGROUND: The UK Age trial compared annual mammography screening of women ages 40 to 49 years with no screening and found a statistically significant breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up but not at the 17-year follow-up. The objective of this study was to compare the observed Age trial results with the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer model predicted results. METHODS: Five established CISNET breast cancer models used data on population demographics, screening attendance, and mammography performance from the Age trial together with extant natural history parameters to project breast cancer incidence and mortality in the control and intervention arm of the trial. RESULTS: The models closely reproduced the effect of annual screening from ages 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence. Restricted to breast cancer deaths originating from cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase, the models estimated an average 15% (range across models, 13% to 17%) breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up compared with 25% (95% CI, 3% to 42%) observed in the trial. At the 17-year follow-up, the models predicted 13% (range, 10% to 17%) reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with the non-significant 12% (95% CI, -4% to 26%) in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: The models underestimated the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality at the 10-year follow-up. Overall, the models captured the observed long-term effect of screening from age 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence and mortality in the UK Age trial, suggesting that the model structures, input parameters, and assumptions about breast cancer natural history are reasonable for estimating the impact of screening on mortality in this age group.
Entities:
Keywords:
CISNET; breast cancer models; external validation; mammography trial simulation
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: Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Diana L Miglioretti; Natasha K Stout; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Diana S M Buist; Hui Huang; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Aimee M Near; Karla Kerlikowske; Heidi D Nelson; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sue M Moss; Christopher Wale; Robert Smith; Andrew Evans; Howard Cuckle; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: R Peto; C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; H C Pan; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; C Taylor; Y C Wang; J Bergh; A Di Leo; K Albain; S Swain; M Piccart; K Pritchard Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David M Eddy; William Hollingworth; J Jaime Caro; Joel Tsevat; Kathryn M McDonald; John B Wong Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jennifer M Yeh; Kathryn P Lowry; Clyde B Schechter; Lisa R Diller; Oguzhan Alagoz; Gregory T Armstrong; John M Hampton; Wendy Leisenring; Qi Liu; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kevin C Oeffinger; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Natasha K Stout Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kathryn P Lowry; H Amarens Geuzinge; Natasha K Stout; Oguzhan Alagoz; John Hampton; Karla Kerlikowske; Harry J de Koning; Diana L Miglioretti; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Clyde Schechter; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Donald Weaver; Martin J Yaffe; Jennifer M Yeh; Fergus J Couch; Chunling Hu; Peter Kraft; Eric C Polley; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Allison W Kurian; Mark E Robson Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 33.006
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: Kathryn P Lowry; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; William E Barlow; Elizabeth S Burnside; Emily F Conant; John M Hampton; Hui Huang; Karla Kerlikowske; Sandra J Lee; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Martin J Yaffe; Natasha K Stout Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Jennifer M Yeh; Kathryn P Lowry; Clyde B Schechter; Lisa R Diller; Grace O'Brien; Oguzhan Alagoz; Gregory T Armstrong; John M Hampton; Melissa M Hudson; Wendy Leisenring; Qi Liu; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Chaya S Moskowitz; Paul C Nathan; Joseph P Neglia; Kevin C Oeffinger; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Natasha K Stout Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 11.816
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: Jean H E Yong; Claude Nadeau; William M Flanagan; Andrew J Coldman; Keiko Asakawa; Rochelle Garner; Natalie Fitzgerald; Martin J Yaffe; Anthony B Miller Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.677
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