IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i1_supplp140s-150s.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49

Author

Listed:
  • Jeroen J. van den Broek

    (Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn

    (Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Jeanne S. Mandelblatt

    (Department of Oncology, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington DC, USA)

  • Hui Huang

    (Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Mehmet Ali Ergun

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Elizabeth S. Burnside

    (Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Cong Xu

    (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

  • Yisheng Li

    (Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA)

  • Oguzhan Alagoz

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Sandra J. Lee

    (Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Natasha K. Stout

    (Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Juhee Song

    (Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA)

  • Amy Trentham-Dietz

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Sylvia K. Plevritis

    (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

  • Sue M. Moss

    (Department of cancer prevention, Wolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK)

  • Harry J. de Koning

    (Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Background. The UK Age trial compared annual mammography screening of women ages 40 to 49 years with no screening and found a statistically significant breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up but not at the 17-year follow-up. The objective of this study was to compare the observed Age trial results with the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer model predicted results. Methods. Five established CISNET breast cancer models used data on population demographics, screening attendance, and mammography performance from the Age trial together with extant natural history parameters to project breast cancer incidence and mortality in the control and intervention arm of the trial. Results. The models closely reproduced the effect of annual screening from ages 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence. Restricted to breast cancer deaths originating from cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase, the models estimated an average 15% (range across models, 13% to 17%) breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up compared with 25% (95% CI, 3% to 42%) observed in the trial. At the 17-year follow-up, the models predicted 13% (range, 10% to 17%) reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with the non-significant 12% (95% CI, -4% to 26%) in the trial. Conclusions. The models underestimated the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality at the 10-year follow-up. Overall, the models captured the observed long-term effect of screening from age 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence and mortality in the UK Age trial, suggesting that the model structures, input parameters, and assumptions about breast cancer natural history are reasonable for estimating the impact of screening on mortality in this age group.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeroen J. van den Broek & Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn & Jeanne S. Mandelblatt & Hui Huang & Mehmet Ali Ergun & Elizabeth S. Burnside & Cong Xu & Yisheng Li & Oguzhan Alagoz & Sandra J. Lee & Natasha K. , 2018. "Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1_suppl), pages 140-150, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:1_suppl:p:140s-150s
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17718168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17718168
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17718168?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
    ---><---

    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:38:y:2018:i:1_suppl:p:140s-150s. 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.