This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Boer, R. Articles by Clarke, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Boer, R. Articles by Clarke, L. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Diversity of model approaches for breast cancer screening: a review of model assumptions by The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Groups

Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, boer{at}rand.org

Sylvia Plevritis

Department of Radiology, Lucas Center, Stanford, CA, USA

Lauren Clarke

Cornerstone Systems, Lynden, WA, USA

The National Cancer Institute-sponsored Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network program on breast cancer is composed of seven research groups working largely independently to model the impact of screening and adjuvant therapy on breast cancer mortality trends in the US from 1975 to 2000. Each of the groups has chosen a different modeling methodology without purposeful attempt to be in contrast with each other. The seven groups have met biannually since November 2000 to discuss their methodology and results. This article investigates the differences in methodology. To facilitate this comparison, each of the groups submitted a description of their model into a uniformly structured web based ‘model profiler’. Six of the seven models simulate a preclinical natural history that cannot be observed directly with parameters estimated from published evidence concerning screening and therapy effects. The remaining model regards published evidence on intervention effects as prior information and updates that with information from the US population in a Bayesian type analysis. In general, the differences between the models appear to be small, particularly among the models driven by natural history assumptions. However, we demonstrate that such apparently small differences can have a large impact on surveillance of population trends. We describe a systematic approach to evaluating differences in model assumptions and results, as well as differences in modeling culture underlying the differences in model structure and parameters.

Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Vol. 13, No. 6, 525-538 (2004)
DOI: 10.1191/0962280204sm381ra


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. D. F. Habbema, S. Y. G. L. Tan, and K. A. Cronin Chapter 14: Impact of Mammography on U.S. Breast Cancer Mortality, 1975-2000: Are Intermediate Outcome Measures Informative? J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 105 - 111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. F. Habbema, C. B. Schechter, K. A. Cronin, L. D. Clarke, and E. J. Feuer Chapter 16: Modeling Cancer Natural History, Epidemiology, and Control: Reflections on the CISNET Breast Group Experience J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 122 - 126. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. R. Localio, L. Zhou, and S. A. Norman Measuring Screening Intensity in Case-Control Studies of the Efficacy of Mammography Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2006; 164(3): 272 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. G Baker, B. S Kramer, M. McIntosh, B. H Patterson, Y. Shyr, and S. Skates Evaluating markers for the early detection of cancer: overview of study designs and methods Clinical Trials, February 1, 2006; 3(1): 43 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]