IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v56y2008i6p1411-1427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Dynamic Breast Cancer Screening Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa M. Maillart

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260)

  • Julie Simmons Ivy

    (Edward P. Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695)

  • Scott Ransom

    (Office of the President, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas 76107)

  • Kathleen Diehl

    (Department of Surgery, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

Abstract

Questions regarding the relative value and frequency of mammography screening for premenopausal women versus postmenopausal women remain open due to the conflicting age-based dynamics of both the disease (increasing incidence, decreasing aggression) and the accuracy of the test results (increasing sensitivity and specificity). To investigate these questions, we formulate a partially observed Markov chain model that captures several of these age-based dynamics not previously considered simultaneously. Using sample-path enumeration, we evaluate a broad range of policies to generate the set of “efficient” policies, as measured by a lifetime breast cancer mortality risk metric and an expected mammogram count, from which a patient may select a policy based on individual circumstance. We demonstrate robustness with respect to small changes in the input data and conclude that, in general, to efficiently achieve a lifetime risk comparable to the current risk among U.S. women, screening should start relatively early in life and continue relatively late in life regardless of the screening interval(s) adopted. The frontier also exhibits interesting patterns with respect to policy type, where policy type is defined by the relationship between the screening interval prescribed in younger years and that prescribed later in life.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa M. Maillart & Julie Simmons Ivy & Scott Ransom & Kathleen Diehl, 2008. "Assessing Dynamic Breast Cancer Screening Policies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 1411-1427, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:56:y:2008:i:6:p:1411-1427
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.1080.0614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1080.0614
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.1080.0614?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Suleyman Özekici & Stanley R. Pliska, 1991. "Optimal Scheduling of Inspections: A Delayed Markov Model with False Positives and Negatives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 261-273, April.
    2. Michael Shwartz, 1978. "A Mathematical Model Used to Analyze Breast Cancer Screening Strategies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 937-955, December.
    3. Jane Warwick & Stephen W. Duffy, 2005. "A review of cancer screening evaluation techniques, with some particular examples in breast cancer screening," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(4), pages 657-677, November.
    4. R. L. A. Kirch & M. Klein, 1974. "Surveillance Schedules for Medical Examinations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(10), pages 1403-1409, June.
    5. Szeto, Kam Leong & Devlin, Nancy J., 1996. "The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 101-115, November.
    6. Rose Baker, 1998. "Use of a mathematical model to evaluate breast cancer screening policy," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 103-113, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan E. Helm & Mariel S. Lavieri & Mark P. Van Oyen & Joshua D. Stein & David C. Musch, 2015. "Dynamic Forecasting and Control Algorithms of Glaucoma Progression for Clinician Decision Support," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 979-999, October.
    2. Turgay Ayer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Natasha K. Stout & Elizabeth S. Burnside, 2016. "Heterogeneity in Women’s Adherence and Its Role in Optimal Breast Cancer Screening Policies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1339-1362, May.
    3. Turgay Ayer, 2015. "Inverse optimization for assessing emerging technologies in breast cancer screening," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 230(1), pages 57-85, July.
    4. Natasha Stout & Amy Knudsen & Chung Kong & Pamela McMahon & G. Gazelle, 2009. "Calibration Methods Used in Cancer Simulation Models and Suggested Reporting Guidelines," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 533-545, July.
    5. Alireza Sabouri & Woonghee Tim Huh & Steven M. Shechter, 2017. "Screening Strategies for Patients on the Kidney Transplant Waiting List," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(5), pages 1131-1146, October.
    6. James F. O’Mahony & Joost van Rosmalen & Nino A. Mushkudiani & Frans-Willem Goudsmit & Marinus J. C. Eijkemans & Eveline A. M. Heijnsdijk & Ewout W. Steyerberg & J. Dik F. Habbema, 2015. "The Influence of Disease Risk on the Optimal Time Interval between Screens for the Early Detection of Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(2), pages 183-195, February.
    7. Süleyman Özekici & Talin Papazyan, 1988. "Inspection policies and processes for deteriorating systems subject to catastrophic failure," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 481-492, August.
    8. Wang, Fan & Zhang, Shengfan & Henderson, Louise M., 2018. "Adaptive decision-making of breast cancer mammography screening: A heuristic-based regression model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 70-84.
    9. Marion S. Rauner & Walter J. Gutjahr & Kurt Heidenberger & Joachim Wagner & Joseph Pasia, 2010. "Dynamic Policy Modeling for Chronic Diseases: Metaheuristic-Based Identification of Pareto-Optimal Screening Strategies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 1269-1286, October.
    10. Nikolai Mühlberger & Gaby Sroczynski & Artemisa Gogollari & Beate Jahn & Nora Pashayan & Ewout Steyerberg & Martin Widschwendter & Uwe Siebert, 2021. "Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1311-1344, November.
    11. B. C. Giri & T Chakraborty, 2007. "Optimal production, maintenance, and warranty strategies for item sold with rebate combination warranty," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 221(4), pages 257-264, December.
    12. Hessam Bavafa & Sergei Savin & Christian Terwiesch, 2021. "Customizing Primary Care Delivery Using E‐Visits," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 4306-4327, November.
    13. Laura McLay & Christodoulos Foufoulides & Jason Merrick, 2010. "Using simulation-optimization to construct screening strategies for cervical cancer," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 294-318, December.
    14. Hulisi Ogut & Huseyin Cavusoglu & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2008. "Intrusion-Detection Policies for IT Security Breaches," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 112-123, February.
    15. Irmgard C. Schiller-Frühwirth & Beate Jahn & Marjan Arvandi & Uwe Siebert, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness Models in Breast Cancer Screening in the General Population: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 333-351, June.
    16. Israel Vieira & Valter Senna & Paul Harper & Arjan Shahani, 2011. "Tumour doubling times and the length bias in breast cancer screening programmes," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 203-211, June.
    17. Brailsford, S.C. & Harper, P.R. & Sykes, J., 2012. "Incorporating human behaviour in simulation models of screening for breast cancer," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 491-507.
    18. Anthony O'Hagan & Matt Stevenson & Jason Madan, 2007. "Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1009-1023.
    19. Sungwook Yoon & Duk Bin Jun & Sungho Park, 2020. "The effect of general health checks on healthcare utilization: accounting for self‐selection bias," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(1), pages 3-36, January.
    20. Michael Shwartz, 1992. "Validation of a Model of Breast Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(3), pages 222-228, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:56:y:2008:i:6:p:1411-1427. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.