IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting colorectal cancer risk from adenoma detection via a two-type branching process model

Author

Listed:
  • Brian M Lang
  • Jack Kuipers
  • Benjamin Misselwitz
  • Niko Beerenwinkel

Abstract

Despite advances in the modeling and understanding of colorectal cancer development, the dynamics of the progression from benign adenomatous polyp to colorectal carcinoma are still not fully resolved. To take advantage of adenoma size and prevalence data in the National Endoscopic Database of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) as well as colorectal cancer incidence and size data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, we construct a two-type branching process model with compartments representing adenoma and carcinoma cells. To perform parameter inference we present a new large-size approximation to the size distribution of the cancer compartment and validate our approach on simulated data. By fitting the model to the CORI and SEER data, we learn biologically relevant parameters, including the transition rate from adenoma to cancer. The inferred parameters allow us to predict the individualized risk of the presence of cancer cells for each screened patient. We provide a web application which allows the user to calculate these individual probabilities at https://ccrc-eth.shinyapps.io/CCRC/. For example, we find a 1 in 100 chance of cancer given the presence of an adenoma between 10 and 20mm size in an average risk patient at age 50. We show that our two-type branching process model recapitulates the early growth dynamics of colon adenomas and cancers and can recover epidemiological trends such as adenoma prevalence and cancer incidence while remaining mathematically and computationally tractable.Author summary: Colorectal cancer is a major public health burden. The development of colorectal cancer starts with the mutational initiation of non-cancerous growths in the form of benign adenomatous polyps. These adenomas grow over time with the potential to develop into carcinomas. Many mathematical and simulation-based models have been used to gain insight into this process. We aimed to understand rates of adenoma growth and transition into carcinomas, to enable better planning of colorectal cancer screening strategies. To this end, we expand the two-type branching process model, and fit it on data describing the frequency of sizes of adenomas and carcinomas. The results provide new, data-based, estimates of the rates of development for colorectal cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian M Lang & Jack Kuipers & Benjamin Misselwitz & Niko Beerenwinkel, 2020. "Predicting colorectal cancer risk from adenoma detection via a two-type branching process model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-23, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007552
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007552
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007552&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007552?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. Brandon Milholland & Xiao Dong & Lei Zhang & Xiaoxiao Hao & Yousin Suh & Jan Vijg, 2017. "Differences between germline and somatic mutation rates in humans and mice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, August.
    2. O. Hyrien & R. Chen & M. Mayer-Pröschel & M. Noble, 2010. "Saddlepoint Approximations to the Moments of Multitype Age-Dependent Branching Processes, with Applications," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 567-577, June.
    3. Anup Dewanji & Jihyoun Jeon & Rafael Meza & E Georg Luebeck, 2011. "Number and Size Distribution of Colorectal Adenomas under the Multistage Clonal Expansion Model of Cancer," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-10, October.
    4. Sonja Kroep & Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar & Alex van der Steen & John M. Inadomi & Marjolein van Ballegooijen, 2015. "The Impact of Uncertainty in Barrett’s Esophagus Progression Rates on Hypothetical Screening and Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 726-733, August.
    5. Karen M. Kuntz & Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar & Carolyn M. Rutter & Amy B. Knudsen & Marjolein van Ballegooijen & James E. Savarino & Eric J. Feuer & Ann G. Zauber, 2011. "A Systematic Comparison of Microsimulation Models of Colorectal Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 530-539, July.
    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. Dimitris Bertsimas & John Silberholz & Thomas Trikalinos, 2018. "Optimal healthcare decision making under multiple mathematical models: application in prostate cancer screening," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 105-118, March.
    2. Cynthia W Ko & V Paul Doria-Rose & Michael J Barrett & Aruna Kamineni & Lindsey Enewold & Noel S Weiss, 2019. "Screening colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy for reduction of colorectal cancer incidence: A case-control study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Jing Voon Chen & Julia L. Higle & Michael Hintlian, 2018. "A systematic approach for examining the impact of calibration uncertainty in disease modeling," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 541-561, October.
    4. Ashley T. Sendell-Price & Frank J. Tulenko & Mats Pettersson & Du Kang & Margo Montandon & Sylke Winkler & Kathleen Kulb & Gavin P. Naylor & Adam Phillippy & Olivier Fedrigo & Jacquelyn Mountcastle & , 2023. "Low mutation rate in epaulette sharks is consistent with a slow rate of evolution in sharks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. David Lähnemann & Johannes Köster & Ute Fischer & Arndt Borkhardt & Alice C. McHardy & Alexander Schönhuth, 2021. "Accurate and scalable variant calling from single cell DNA sequencing data with ProSolo," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Wei Sun & Chong Jin & Jonathan A. Gelfond & Ming‐Hui Chen & Joseph G. Ibrahim, 2020. "Joint analysis of single‐cell and bulk tissue sequencing data to infer intratumor heterogeneity," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 983-994, September.
    7. Marjolein van Ballegooijen & Carolyn M. Rutter & Amy B. Knudsen & Ann G. Zauber & James E. Savarino & Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar & Rob Boer & Eric J. Feuer & J. Dik F. Habbema & Karen M. Kuntz, 2011. "Clarifying Differences in Natural History between Models of Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 540-549, July.
    8. Andrew F. Brouwer & Rafael Meza & Marisa C. Eisenberg, 2017. "A Systematic Approach to Determining the Identifiability of Multistage Carcinogenesis Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1375-1387, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pcbi00:1007552. 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.