Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27335532›Full record

ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2016

A Utility/Cost Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Algorithms.

Craig K Abbey, Yirong Wu, Elizabeth S Burnside, Adam Wunderlich, Frank W Samuelson, John M Boone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Craig K AbbeyDept. of Psychological and Brain Sciences, UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA. USA 93106.
Yirong WuDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Elizabeth S BurnsideDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Adam WunderlichDivision of Imaging and Applied Mathematics, OSEL, CDRH, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, USA.
Frank W SamuelsonDivision of Imaging and Applied Mathematics, OSEL, CDRH, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, USA.
John M BooneDept of Radiology, UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento CA. USA.

Funding

TrainingU54AI117924 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CRAVEN, MARK W. · 2014 to 2018
$11.3M
Breast CT: Final Steps to TranslationR01CA181081 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BOONE, JOHN M · 2015 to 2019
$2.9M
Informatics Techniques to Optimize Mammography for Aging PopulationsR01CA165229 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BURNSIDE, ELIZABETH S · 2012 to 2016
$1.7M
Machine Learning for Improved Mammography ScreeningR01CA127379 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BURNSIDE, ELIZABETH S · 2007 to 2010
$1.4M
Integrating Machine Learning and Physician Expertise for Breast Cancer DiagnosisR01LM010921 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BURNSIDE, ELIZABETH S · 2011 to 2014
$1.2M
Mentoring And Research In Patient-Oriented Breast Cancer DiagnosisK24CA194251 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BURNSIDE, ELIZABETH S · 2015 to 2019
$963k
Utility-Based Assessment of Diagnostic Imaging PerformanceR21EB018939 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI ABBEY, CRAIG KENDALL · 2014 to 2015
$384k
NCI NIH HHS K24 CA194251NCI NIH HHS R01 CA127379NCI NIH HHS R01 CA165229NCI NIH HHS R01 CA181081NIAID NIH HHS U54 AI117924NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB018939NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010921
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer risk prediction algorithms are used to identify subpopulations that are at increased risk for developing breast cancer. They can be based on many different sources of data such as demographics, relatives with cancer, gene expression, and various phenotypic features such as breast density. Women who are identified as high risk may undergo a more extensive (and expensive) screening process that includes MRI or ultrasound imaging in addition to the standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) exam. Given that there are many ways that risk prediction may be accomplished, it is of interest to evaluate them in terms of expected cost, which includes the costs of diagnostic outcomes. In this work we perform an expected-cost analysis of risk prediction algorithms that is based on a published model that includes the costs associated with diagnostic outcomes (true-positive, false-positive, etc.). We assume the existence of a standard screening method and an enhanced screening method with higher scan cost, higher sensitivity, and lower specificity. We then assess expected cost of using a risk prediction algorithm to determine who gets the enhanced screening method under the strong assumption that risk and diagnostic performance are independent. We find that if risk prediction leads to a high enough positive predictive value, it will be cost-effective regardless of the size of the subpopulation. Furthermore, in terms of the hit-rate and false-alarm rate of the of the risk-prediction algorithm, iso-cost contours are lines with slope determined by properties of the available diagnostic systems for screening.

Indexed as

breast cancer screeningdiagnostic utilityexpected costRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID27335532
PMCPMC4913185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.