IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i2p212-223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Simulation to Model and Validate Invasive Breast Cancer Progression in Women in the Study and Control Groups of the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies I and II

Author

Listed:
  • Sharareh Taghipour
  • Laurent N. Caudrelier
  • Anthony B. Miller
  • Bart Harvey

Abstract

Background. Modeling breast cancer progression and the effect of various risk is helpful in deciding when a woman should start and end screening, and how often the screening should be undertaken. Methods. We modeled the natural progression of breast cancer using a hidden Markov process, and incorporated the effects of covariates. Patients are women aged 50–59 (older) and 40–49 (younger) years from the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies. We included prevalent cancers, estimated the screening sensitivities and rates of over-diagnosis, and validated the models using simulation. Results. We found that older women have a higher rate of transition from a healthy to preclinical state and other causes of death but a lower rate of transition from preclinical to clinical state. Reciprocally, younger women have a lower rate of transition from a healthy to preclinical state and other causes of death but a higher rate of transition from a preclinical to clinical state. Different risk factors were significant for the age groups. The mean sojourn times for older and younger women were 2.53 and 2.96 years, respectively. In the study group, the sensitivities of the initial physical examination and mammography for older and younger women were 0.87 and 0.81, respectively, and the sensitivity of the subsequent screens were 0.78 and 0.53, respectively. In the control groups, the sensitivities of the initial physical examination for older and younger women were 0.769 and 0.671, respectively, and the sensitivity of the subsequent physical examinations for the control group aged 50–59 years was 0.37. The upper-bounds for over-diagnosis in older and younger women were 25% and 27%, respectively. Conclusions. The present work offers a basis for the better modeling of cancer incidence for a population with the inclusion of prevalent cancers.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharareh Taghipour & Laurent N. Caudrelier & Anthony B. Miller & Bart Harvey, 2017. "Using Simulation to Model and Validate Invasive Breast Cancer Progression in Women in the Study and Control Groups of the Canadian National Breast Screening Studies I and II," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 212-223, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:2:p:212-223
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16660711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16660711
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16660711?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. Michael Shwartz, 1978. "A Mathematical Model Used to Analyze Breast Cancer Screening Strategies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 937-955, December.
    2. Paul K Newton & Jeremy Mason & Kelly Bethel & Lyudmila A Bazhenova & Jorge Nieva & Peter Kuhn, 2012. "A Stochastic Markov Chain Model to Describe Lung Cancer Growth and Metastasis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, April.
    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. Odelaisy León-Triana & Julián Pérez-Beteta & David Albillo & Ana Ortiz de Mendivil & Luis Pérez-Romasanta & Elisabet González-Del Portillo & Manuel Llorente & Natalia Carballo & Estanislao Arana & Víc, 2021. "Brain Metastasis Response to Stereotactic Radio Surgery: A Mathematical Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, March.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Michael Shwartz, 1992. "Validation of a Model of Breast Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(3), pages 222-228, August.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Sandra J. Lee & Marvin Zelen, 2008. "Mortality Modeling of Early Detection Programs," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 386-395, June.

    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:37:y:2017:i:2:p:212-223. 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: 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.