Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21673186›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making

A systematic comparison of microsimulation models of colorectal cancer: the role of assumptions about adenoma progression.

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

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03264898 (Comparative Effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Tests With Optical Colonoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 72 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03264898 completednot on this map

Comparative Effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Tests With Optical Colonoscopy (R01 CA215034)

TypeobservationalSponsorBarcey T. LevyRan2017 to 2023Enrolled3,761ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsFecal immunochemical test (FIT)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of microsimulation models for skin cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Karen M KuntzDivision of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (KMK)
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (IL-V, MvB)
Carolyn M RutterCenter for Health Studies, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (CMR, JES)
Amy B KnudsenInstitute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (ABK)
Marjolein van BallegooijenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (IL-V, MvB)
James E SavarinoCenter for Health Studies, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (CMR, JES)
Eric J FeuerDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland (EJF)
Ann G ZauberDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (AGZ)

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
A POPULATION-BASED POLICY MODEL FOR COLORECTAL CANCERU01CA088204 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI KUNTZ, KAREN M · 2000 to 2010
$2.4M
Modeling Effective Health Policies for Colorectal CancerU01CA097426 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI ZAUBER, ANN GRAHAM · 2002 to 2010
$2.2M
Colorectal Cancer Screening:Evaluating Trends &OutcomesU01CA097427 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI RUTTER, CAROLYN M · 2002 to 2009
$2.1M
Coordinating Center for Colorectal MicrosimulationU01CA115953 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI ZAUBER, ANN GRAHAM · 2005 to 2009
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS U01 CA088204NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-088204NCI NIH HHS U01 CA097426NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-097426NCI NIH HHS U01 CA097427NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-097427NCI NIH HHS U01 CA115953NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-115953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the complexity of microsimulation models increases, concerns about model transparency are heightened.

methodsThe 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsModels 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.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdenomaAgedColorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID21673186
PMCPMC3424513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.