Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29554471›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2018

Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Models Using the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction Methodology.

Jeroen J van den Broek, Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, Jeanne S Mandelblatt, Mucahit Cevik, Clyde B Schechter, Sandra J Lee, Hui Huang, Yisheng Li, Diego F Munoz, Sylvia K Plevritis and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  11. A Bayesian Simulation Model for Breast Cancer Screening, Incidence, Treatment, and Mortality.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  12. The University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model: An Update.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  13. Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeroen J van den BroekDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Nicolien T van RavesteynDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jeanne S MandelblattDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Mucahit CevikDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.
Clyde B SchechterDepartments of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Sandra J LeeDepartment of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA.
Hui HuangDepartment of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, MA, USA.
Yisheng LiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Diego F MunozDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sylvia K PlevritisDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Natasha K StoutDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Marjolein van BallegooijenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLHarvard University · USStanford University · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USGeorgetown University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KARLA M KERLIKOWSKE · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice and PolicyU01CA199218 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2015 to 2019
$9.0M
Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice & PolicyU01CA152958 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2010 to 2015
$7.6M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152958NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199218NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollaborative modeling has been used to estimate the impact of potential cancer screening strategies worldwide. A necessary step in the interpretation of collaborative cancer screening model results is to understand how model structure and model assumptions influence cancer incidence and mortality predictions. In this study, we examined the relative contributions of the pre-clinical duration of breast cancer, the sensitivity of screening, and the improvement in prognosis associated with treatment of screen-detected cases to the breast cancer incidence and mortality predictions of 5 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models.

methodsTo tease out the impact of model structure and assumptions on model predictions, the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction (MCLIR) method compares changes in the number of breast cancers diagnosed due to clinical symptoms and cancer mortality between 4 simplified scenarios: 1) no-screening; 2) one-time perfect screening exam, which detects all existing cancers and perfect treatment (i.e., cure) of all screen-detected cancers; 3) one-time digital mammogram and perfect treatment of all screen-detected cancers; and 4) one-time digital mammogram and current guideline-concordant treatment of all screen-detected cancers.

resultsThe 5 models predicted a large range in maximum clinical incidence (19% to 71%) and in breast cancer mortality reduction (33% to 67%) from a one-time perfect screening test and perfect treatment. In this perfect scenario, the models with assumptions of tumor inception before it is first detectable by mammography predicted substantially higher incidence and mortality reductions than models with assumptions of tumor onset at the start of a cancer's screen-detectable phase. The range across models in breast cancer clinical incidence (11% to 24%) and mortality reduction (8% to 18%) from a one-time digital mammogram at age 62 y with observed sensitivity and current guideline-concordant treatment was considerably smaller than achievable under perfect conditions.

conclusionsThe timing of tumor inception and its effect on the length of the pre-clinical phase of breast cancer had a substantial impact on the grouping of models based on their predictions for clinical incidence and breast cancer mortality reduction. This key finding about the timing of tumor inception will be included in future CISNET breast analyses to enhance model transparency. The MCLIR approach should aid in the interpretation of variations in model results and could be adopted in other disease screening settings to enhance model transparency.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsComputer SimulationDisease ProgressionEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSEER ProgramUnited Statesbreast cancer natural history assumptionsmaximum clinical incidence reductionscreening effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID29554471
PMCPMC5862068
OpenAlexW2793456658

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.