Calibration Uncertainty and Model-Based Analyses with Applications to Ovarian Cancer Modeling

  • Jing Voon Chen
  • Julia L. HigleEmail author
Part of the Women in Engineering and Science book series (WES)


Model-based analyses for comparative analyses within medical decision making require the development of a model of the disease that is being examined. This involves the specification of the model structure and the calibration of model parameters so that model outcomes are consistent with observable disease-related data. There is rarely a unique set of model parameters that are consistent with observable data, and such parameter sets can vary significantly. This phenomenon is known as “calibration uncertainty” and is especially prevalent when models address preclinical phases of the disease. Because model parameters influence comparative analyses, examination of the impact of calibration uncertainty on recommendations derived from the analysis is crucial to developing confidence in the recommendations. In this chapter, we present an approach to the characterization and systematic examination of the set of models that provide plausible representations of the disease. We illustrate our approach within the context of ovarian cancer. In doing so, we illustrate the impact of calibration uncertainty on the potential for early detection of ovarian cancer.


  1. American Cancer Society (2017) Cancer facts & figures 2017. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson GL, McIntosh M, Wu L, Barnett M, Goodman G, Thorpe JD, Bergan L, Thornquist MD, Scholler N, Kim N et al (2010) Assessing lead time of selected ovarian cancer biomarkers: a nested case–control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(1):26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arias E, Heron M, Xu J (2016) United states life tables, 2012. Natl Vital Stat Rep 65(8):14–15Google Scholar
  4. Boyd J, Sonoda Y, Federici MG, Bogomolniy F, Rhei E, Maresco DL, Saigo PE, Almadrones LA, Barakat RR, Brown CL et al (2000) Clinicopathologic features of BRCA-linked and sporadic ovarian cancer. JAMA 283(17):2260–2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown PO, Palmer C (2009) The preclinical natural history of serous ovarian cancer: defining the target for early detection. PLoS Med 6(7):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson CC, Lamerato L, Isaacs C, Reding DJ, Greenlee RT, Yokochi LA, Kessel B, et al (2011) Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA 305(22):2295–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capocaccia R, De Angelis R (1997) Estimating the completeness of prevalence based on cancer registry data. Stat Med 16(4):425–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambers SK, Hess LM (2008) Ovarian cancer prevention. In: Alberts DS, Hess LM (eds) Fundamentals of cancer prevention, Chap. 17. Springer, Berlin, pp 447–473Google Scholar
  9. Chen JV, Higle JL, Hintlian M (2018) A Systematic approach for examining the impact of calibration uncertainty in disease modeling. Comput Manage Sci 15:541–561MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cutler SJ, Young JL (eds) (1975) Third national cancer survey: incidence data, national cancer institute monograph 41, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 75-787. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Drescher CW, Hawley S, Thorpe JD, Marticke S, McIntosh M, Gambhir SS, Urban N (2012) Impact of screening test performance and cost on mortality reduction and cost-effectiveness of multimodal ovarian cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res 5(8):1015–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Havrilesky LJ, Sanders GD, Kulasingam S, Myers ER (2008) Reducing ovarian cancer mortality through screening: is it possible, and can we afford it? Gynecol Oncol 111(2):179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Havrilesky LJ, Sanders GD, Kulasingam S, Chino JP, Berchuck A, Marks JR, Myers ER (2011) Development of an ovarian cancer screening decision model that incorporates disease heterogeneity. Cancer 117(3):545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi JK, Amso NN, Apostolidou S, Benjamin E, Cruickshank D et al (2016) Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387(10022):945–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katsube Y, Berg J, Silverberg S (1982) Epidemiologic pathology of ovarian tumors: a histopathologic review of primary ovarian neoplasms diagnosed in the Denver Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, 1 July–31 December 1969 and 1 July–31 December 1979. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1(1):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keshavarz H, Hillis SD, Kieke BA, Marchbanks PA (2002) Hysterectomy surveillance—United States, 1994–1999. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 51:1–8Google Scholar
  17. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, Lewis S, Davies S, Philpott S, Lopes A et al (2009) Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 10(4):327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merrill RM (2006) Impact of hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy on race-specific rates of corpus, cervical, and ovarian cancers in the United States. Ann Epidemiol 16(12):880–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merrill RM, Capocaccia R, Feuer EJ, Mariotto A (2000) Cancer prevalence estimates based on tumour registry data in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. Int J Epidemiol 29(2):197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moyer VA (2012) Screening for ovarian cancer: U.S. preventive services task force reaffirmation recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 157(12):900–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7(4):308–313MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Partridge E, Greenlee RT, Xu JL, Kreimer AR, Williams C, Riley T, Reding DJ, Church TR, Kessel B, Johnson CC et al (2009) Results from four rounds of ovarian cancer screening in a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 113(4):775–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Permuth-Wey J, Sellers TA (2009) Epidemiology of ovarian cancer. Humana Press, Totowa, pp 413–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schapira MM, Matchar DB, Young MJ (1993) The effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening: a decision analysis model. Ann Intern Med 118(11):838–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schorge JO, Modesitt SC, Coleman RL, Cohn DE, Kauff ND, Duska LR, Herzog TJ (2010) SGO white paper on ovarian cancer: etiology, screening and surveillance. Gynecol Oncol 119(1): 7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skates SJ, Singer DE (1991) Quantifying the potential benefit of CA 125 screening for ovarian cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 44(4):365–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Urban N, Drescher C, Etzioni R, Colby C (1997) Use of a stochastic simulation model to identify an efficient protocol for ovarian cancer screening. Control Clin Trials 18(3):251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wingo PA, Huezo CM, Rubin GL, Ory HW, Peterson HB (1985) The mortality risk associated with hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 152(7):803–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A, Warren JL, Topor M, Meekins A, Brown ML (2008) Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(9):630–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Daniel J. Epstein Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations