Skip to main content

Optimization of Breast Cancer Screening Modalities

  • Conference paper

Abstract

Mathematical models and decision analyses based on microsimulations have been shown to be useful in evaluating relative merits of various screening strategies in terms of cost and mortality reduction. Most investigations regarding the balance between mortality reduction and costs have focused on a single modality, mammography. A systematic evaluation of the relative expenses and projected benefit of combining clinical breast examination and mammograpphy is not at present available. The purpose of this report is to provide methodologic details including assumptions and data used in the process of modeling for complex decision analyses, when searching for optimal breast cancer screening strategies with the multiple screening modalities. To systematic evaluate the relative expenses and projected bene- fit of screening programmes that combine the two modalities, we build a simulation model incorporating age-specific incidence of the disease, age-specific pre-clinical duration of the disease, age-specific sensitivities of the two screening modalities, and competing causes of mortality. Using decision models, we can integrate information from different sources into the modeling processes, and assess the cost-effectiveness of a variety of screening strategies while incorporating uncertainties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Weir HK, Thun MJ, Hankey BF, Ries LA, Lowe HL, Wingo PA, Jemal A, Ward E, Anderson RN, Edwards B.: Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control. J Natl Cancer Inst, 95(17):1276–1299, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Cancer Institute: The surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (seer) program. www.seer.cancer.gov, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Research on Cancer (IARC) IA. The cancer-mondial website. www.dep.iarc.fr, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fletcher SW; Elmore JG. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 348(17):1672–1680, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang L. Mammography and beyond: Building better breast cancer screening tests. J Natl Cancer Inst, 94(18):1346–1347, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Berry DA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: A statistical appraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst, 90:1431–1439, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gordis L; Berry D; Chu S; et al. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49. J Natl Cancer Inst, 89:1015–1026, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40–49 years at average risk of breast cancer. CMAJ, 164(4):469–476, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Parmigiani G. Measuring uncertainty in complex decision analyses models. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 11(6):513–37, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van Oortmarseen G; Boer R; Habbema J. Modeling issues in cancer screening. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 4:33–54, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Parmigiani G. Modeling in Medical Decision Making. Wiley, Chichester, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Parmigiani G. On optimal screening ages. J Amer Stat Assoc, 88:622–628, 1993.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. De Koning H. Breast cancer screening; cost-effectiveness in practice. Eur J Radiol, 33:32–7, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lindfors KK; Rosenquist CJ. The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. J Am Med Assoc, 274:881–884, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown ML. Sensitivity analysis in the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Cancer, 69(7 Suppl):1963–1967, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mushlin AI; Fintor L. Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Cancer, 69(7 Suppl):1957–1962, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. van Ineveld BM; van Oortmarssen GJ; de Koning HJ; Boer R; van der Maas PJ. How cost-effective is breast cancer screening in different EC countries? European Journal of Cancer, 29:1663–1668, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brown ML; Fintor L. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening: preliminary results of a systematic review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 25:113–118, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Elixhauser A. Costs of breast cancer and the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 7:604–615, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clark RA. Economic issues in screening mammography. Am J of Roentgenology, 158:527–534, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Parmigiani G; Kamlet M. Cost-utility analysis of alternative strategies in screening for breast cancer. In C Gatsonis; J Hodges; RE Kass; N Singpurwalla, eds., Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics, 390–402. Springer, New York, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Eddy DM; Hasselblad V; McGivney W; Hendee W. The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years. J Am Med Assoc, 259:1512–1519, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Carter R; Glasziou P; van Oortmarssen G; de Koning H; Stevenson C; Salkeld G; Boer R. Cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening in Australia. Austr J Pub Health, 17:42–50, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Saltzmann P; Kerlikowske K; Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med, 127:955–965, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Burnside E; Belkora J; Esserman L. The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States. Clinical Breast Cancer, 2(2):145–152, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fett M. Computer modelling of the Swedish two country trial of mammographic screening and trade offs between participation screening interval. J Med Screen, 8(1):39–45, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yasmeen S; Romano P; Pettinger M; Chlebowski R; Robbins J; Lane D; Hendrix S. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst, 95(6):429–436, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Sickles E. Short-interval follow-up mammography: Are we doing the right thing? J Natl Cancer Inst, 95(6):418–419, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Barton MB; Harris R; Fletcher SW. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: Should it be done? How? J Am Mec Assoc, 282:1270–80, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Baines CJ; Miller AB; Bassett AA. Physical examination. its role as a single screening modality in the canadian national breast screening study. Cancer, 63:1816–22, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bobo J; Lee N; Thames SF. Findings from 752081 clinical breast examinations reported to a national screening program from 1995 through 1998. J Natl Cancer Inst, 92:971–6, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shen Y; Zelen M. Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. J Clin Oncol, 19:3490–9, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shen Y; Parmigiani G. A model-based comparison of breast cancer screening strategies: Mammograms and clinical breast examinations. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, in press, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Moolgavkar SH; Stevens RG; Lee JAH. Effect of age on incidence of breast cancer in females. J Natl Cancer Inst, 62:493–501, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Parmigiani G; Skates S. Estimating the age of onset of detectable asymptomatic cancer. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 33:1347–1360, 2001.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Albert A; Gertman P; Louis T. Screening for the early detection of cancer: I. the temporal natural history of a progressive disease state. Mathematical Biosciences, 40:1–59, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Day NE; Walter SD. Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: Estimation procedures from mass screening programmes. Biometrics, 40:1–13, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Brookmeyer R; Day NE; Moss S. Case-control studies for estimation of the natural history of preclinical disease from screening data. Statistics in Medicine, 5:127–138, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Etzioni RD; Shen Y. Estimating asymptomatic duration in cancer: the AIDS connection. Stat in Med, 16:627–644, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Straatman H; Peer PG; Verbeek AL. Estimating lead time and sensitivity in a screening program without estimating the incidence in the screened group. Biometrics, 53:217–229, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Shen Y; Zelen M. Parametric estimation procedures for screening programmes: Stable and nonstable disease models for multimodality case finding. Biometrika, 86:503–515, 1999.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Spratt JS; Greenberg RA; Heuser LS. Geometry, growth rates, and duration of cancer and carcinoma in situ of the breast before detection by screening. Cancer Research, 46:970–974, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Peer P; van Dijck JAAM; Hendriks J; Holland R; Verbeek ALM. Age-dependent growth rate of primary breast cancer. Cancer, 71:3547–3551, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Peer P; Verbeek A; Straatman H; Hendriks J; Holland R. Agespecific sensitivities of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 38:153–160, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. National Cancer Institute: Chemoprevention of Estrogen Receptor (ER) Negative Breast Cancer Preclinical Studies. NIH homepage. http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CA-03-005.html, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wood W; Weiss R; Tormey D; Holland J; Henry P; Leone L; et al. A randomized trial of CMF versus CMFVP as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-positive stage ii breast cancer: a CALGB study. World J Surg, 9:714–718, 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Perloff M; Norton L; Korzun A; Wood W; Carey R; Gottlieb A; et al. Postsurgical adjuvant chemotherapy of stage ii breast carcinoma with or without crossover to a non-cross-resistant regimen: a cancer and leukemia group b study. J Clin Oncol, 14:1589–98, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wood W; Budman D; Korzun A; Cooper M; Younger J; Hart R; et al. Dose and dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage ii, node-positive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med, 330:1253–1259, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Parmigiani G; Berry DA; Winer EP; Tebaldi C; Iglehart JD; Prosnitz L. Is axillary lymph node dissection indicated for early stage breast cancer-a decision analysis. J Clin Oncol, 17(5):1465–1473, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Shen Y; Wu D; Zelen M. Testing the independence of two diagnostic tests. Biometrics, 57:1009–1017, 2001.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  51. Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Frankel SD; Ominsky SH; Sickles EA; Ernster V. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the american college of radiology breast imaging reporting and data system. J Natl Cancer Inst, 90(23):1801–1809, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. PREVENTION. Cancer tests worth paying for. http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature/0,1204,876,00.html, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Matchar DB; Samsa GP. Using outcomes data to identify best medical practice: the role of policy models. Hepatology, Jun; 29(6 Suppl):36S–39S, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Barratt A; Irwig L; Glasziou P; et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XVII. how to use guidelines and recommendations about screening. evidence-based medicine working group. J Am Mec Assoc, 281(21):2029–2034, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Elmore JG; Barton MB; Moceri VM; Polk S; Arena PJ; Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med, 338:1089–1096, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: The HIP randomized controlled trial. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst, 22:27–30, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Miller A; To T; Baines C; Wall C. The Canadian national breast screening study: Update on breast cancer mortality. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst, 22:37–41, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Shen, Y., Parmigiani, G. (2006). Optimization of Breast Cancer Screening Modalities. In: Nikulin, M., Commenges, D., Huber, C. (eds) Probability, Statistics and Modelling in Public Health. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-26023-4_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics