Author
Listed:
- Jie-Bin Lew
(Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, New South Wales, Australia
Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, New South Wales, Australia)
- Marjolein J. E. Greuter
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
- Michael Caruana
(Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, New South Wales, Australia
Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, New South Wales, Australia)
- Emily He
(Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of NSW, New South Wales, Australia
Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, New South Wales, Australia)
- Joachim Worthington
(Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, New South Wales, Australia)
- D. James St John
(Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Prevention Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)
- Finlay A. Macrae
(Department of Colorectal Medicine and Genetics, and Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)
- Eleonora Feletto
(Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, New South Wales, Australia)
- Veerle M. H. Coupé
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
- Karen Canfell
(School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, New South Wales, Australia)
Abstract
Background . This study aimed to assess the validity of 2 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer (CRC), Policy1-Bowel and ASCCA. Methods . The model-estimated CRC risk in population subgroups with different health statuses, “dwell time†(time from incident precancerous polyp to symptomatically detected CRC), and reduction in symptomatically detected CRC incidence after a one-time complete removal of polyps and/or undetected CRC were compared with published findings from 3 well-established models ( MISCAN, CRC-SPIN , and SimCRC ). Furthermore, 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that provided screening using a guaiac fecal occult blood test (Funen trial, Burgundy trial, and Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study [MCCCS]) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (NORCCAP, SCORE, and UKFSST) with long-term follow-up were simulated. Model-estimated long-term relative reductions of CRC incidence (RR inc ) and mortality (RR mort ) were compared with the RCTs’ findings. Results . The Policy1-Bowel and ASCCA estimates showed more similarities to CRC-SPIN and SimCRC . For example, overall dwell times estimated by Policy1-Bowel (24.0 years) and ASCCA (25.3) were comparable to CRC-SPIN (25.8) and SimCRC (25.2) but higher than MISCAN (10.6). In addition, ∼86% of Policy1-Bowel ’s and ∼74% of ASCCA ’s estimated RR inc and RR mort were consistent with the RCTs’ long-term follow-up findings. For example, at 17 to 18 years of follow-up, the MCCCS reported RR mort of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.83) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.62–0.97) for the annual and biennial screening arm, respectively, and the UKFSST reported RR mort of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.62–0.79) for CRC at all sites and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.46–0.65) for distal CRC. The corresponding model estimates were 0.65, 0.74, 0.81, and 0.61, respectively, for Policy1-Bowel and 0.65, 0.70, 0.75, and 0.58, respectively, for ASCCA . Conclusion . Policy1-Bowel and ASCCA ’s estimates are largely consistent with the data included for comparisons, which indicates good model validity.
Suggested Citation
Jie-Bin Lew & Marjolein J. E. Greuter & Michael Caruana & Emily He & Joachim Worthington & D. James St John & Finlay A. Macrae & Eleonora Feletto & Veerle M. H. Coupé & Karen Canfell, 2020.
"Validation of Microsimulation Models against Alternative Model Predictions and Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Outcomes of Randomized Controlled Trials,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 815-829, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:6:p:815-829
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20944869
Download full text from publisher
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:40:y:2020:i:6:p:815-829. 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.