IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i4p530-539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Comparison of Microsimulation Models of Colorectal Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Karen M. Kuntz
  • Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
  • Carolyn M. Rutter
  • Amy B. Knudsen
  • Marjolein van Ballegooijen
  • James E. Savarino
  • Eric J. Feuer
  • Ann G. Zauber

Abstract

Background . As the complexity of microsimulation models increases, concerns about model transparency are heightened. Methods . The authors conducted model “experiments†to explore the impact of variations in “deep†model parameters using 3 colorectal cancer (CRC) models. All natural history models were calibrated to match observed data on adenoma prevalence and cancer incidence but varied in their underlying specification of the adenocarcinoma process. The authors projected CRC incidence among individuals with an underlying adenoma or preclinical cancer v. those without any underlying condition and examined the impact of removing adenomas. They calculated the percentage of simulated CRC cases arising from adenomas that developed within 10 or 20 years prior to cancer diagnosis and estimated dwell time—defined as the time from the development of an adenoma to symptom-detected cancer in the absence of screening among individuals with a CRC diagnosis. Results . The 20-year CRC incidence among 55-year-old individuals with an adenoma or preclinical cancer was 7 to 75 times greater than in the condition-free group. The removal of all adenomas among the subgroup with an underlying adenoma or cancer resulted in a reduction of 30% to 89% in cumulative incidence. Among CRCs diagnosed at age 65 years, the proportion arising from adenomas formed within 10 years ranged between 4% and 67%. The mean dwell time varied from 10.6 to 25.8 years. Conclusions . Models that all match observed data on adenoma prevalence and cancer incidence can produce quite different dwell times and very different answers with respect to the effectiveness of interventions. When conducting applied analyses to inform policy, using multiple models provides a sensitivity analysis on key (unobserved) “deep†model parameters and can provide guidance about specific areas in need of additional research and validation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:4:p:530-539
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11408730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11408730
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11408730?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    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:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:4:p:530-539. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.