Literature DB >> 31179833

Evaluating Parameter Uncertainty in a Simulation Model of Cancer Using Emulators.

Tiago M de Carvalho1,2, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk1, Luc Coffeng1, Harry J de Koning1.   

Abstract

Background. Microsimulation models have been extensively used in the field of cancer modeling. However, there is substantial uncertainty regarding estimates from these models, for example, overdiagnosis in prostate cancer. This is usually not thoroughly examined due to the high computational effort required. Objective. To quantify uncertainty in model outcomes due to uncertainty in model parameters, using a computationally efficient emulator (Gaussian process regression) instead of the model. Methods. We use a microsimulation model of prostate cancer (microsimulation screening analysis [MISCAN]) to simulate individual life histories. We analyze the effect of parametric uncertainty on overdiagnosis with probabilistic sensitivity analyses (ProbSAs). To minimize the number of MISCAN runs needed for ProbSAs, we emulate MISCAN, using data pairs of parameter values and outcomes to fit a Gaussian process regression model. We evaluate to what extent the emulator accurately reproduces MISCAN by computing its prediction error. Results. Using an emulator instead of MISCAN, we may reduce the computation time necessary to run a ProbSA by more than 85%. The average relative prediction error of the emulator for overdiagnosis equaled 1.7%. We predicted that 42% of screen-detected men are overdiagnosed, with an associated empirical confidence interval between 38% and 48%. Sensitivity analyses show that the accuracy of the emulator is sensitive to which model parameters are included in the training runs. Conclusions. For a computationally expensive simulation model with a large number of parameters, we show it is possible to conduct a ProbSA, within a reasonable computation time, by using a Gaussian process regression emulator instead of the original simulation model.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gaussian process regression; emulators; overdiagnosis; probabilistic sensitivity analyses; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31179833      PMCID: PMC6684257          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19837631

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


  23 in total

1.  Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: be a Bayesian.

Authors:  Hendriek C Boshuizen; Pieter H M van Baal
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Ruth Etzioni; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Lynn Greene; Lars Holmberg; Philip Kantoff; Badrinath R Konety; Mohammad Hassan Murad; David F Penson; Anthony L Zietman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Bayesian sensitivity analysis of a model of the aortic valve.

Authors:  W Becker; J Rowson; J E Oakley; A Yoxall; G Manson; K Worden
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6.

Authors:  Andrew H Briggs; Milton C Weinstein; Elisabeth A L Fenwick; Jonathan Karnon; Mark J Sculpher; A David Paltiel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  The prostate cancer conundrum revisited: treatment changes and prostate cancer mortality declines.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Elisabeth M Wever; David F Penson; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Jeffrey Katcher; Gerrit Draisma; Eric J Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Angela B Mariotto
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  How does early detection by screening affect disease progression? Modeling estimated benefits in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Wever; Gerrit Draisma; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Comparative analysis of 5 lung cancer natural history and screening models that reproduce outcomes of the NLST and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Rafael Meza; Kevin ten Haaf; Chung Yin Kong; Ayca Erdogan; William C Black; Martin C Tammemagi; Sung Eun Choi; Jihyoun Jeon; Summer S Han; Vidit Munshi; Joost van Rosmalen; Paul Pinsky; Pamela M McMahon; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; William D Hazelton; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Gaussian process modeling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modeling: a case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of established osteoporosis.

Authors:  M D Stevenson; J Oakley; J B Chilcott
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Liisa Määttänen; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Matti Hakama; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Gunnar Aus; Andreas Huber; Theo H van der Kwast; Ron H N van Schaik; Harry J de Koning; Sue M Moss; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis of a Cardiac Cell Model Using a Gaussian Process Emulator.

Authors:  Eugene T Y Chang; Mark Strong; Richard H Clayton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Introduction to Metamodeling for Reducing Computational Burden of Advanced Analyses with Health Economic Models: A Structured Overview of Metamodeling Methods in a 6-Step Application Process.

Authors:  Koen Degeling; Maarten J IJzerman; Mariel S Lavieri; Mark Strong; Hendrik Koffijberg
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Development and Validation of a Discrete Event Simulation Model to Evaluate the Cardiovascular Impact of Population Policies for Obesity.

Authors:  Arantzazu Arrospide; Oliver Ibarrondo; Iván Castilla; Igor Larrañaga; Javier Mar
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 2.583

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.