CISNET and BCSC: Working Together To Model The Population Impact Breast Cancer Screening A Celebration of the Work of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2004 Camden County Cancer Capacity and Needs Assessment: The Next Steps Jean F. Mouch, MD, MPH Camden County Coalition Coordinator April 6, 2005.
Advertisements

CANCER SCREENING 2011 DELAWARE CANCER EDUCATION ALLIANCE STEPHEN S. GRUBBS, M.D. HELEN F. GRAHAM CANCER CENTER DELAWARE CANCER CONSORTIUM OCTOBER 5, 2011.
†Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department.
Health Disparities: Breast Cancer in African AmericansIn Lansing Health Disparities: Breast Cancer in African Americans In Lansing Costellia Talley, PhD,
BREAST CANCER SCREENING Anoop Agrawal, M.D.. NEW USPSTF BREAST SCREENING GUIDELINES Published by US Preventative Screening Task Force in November 2009.
J Thorac Dis 2013;5(S5) Estimated 10 year survival 88%, regardless of treatment Survival rate 92% if surgical resection in 1 month.
An update for Illinois Nurses Elizabeth A. Peralta, MD The Breast Center at SIU Springfield, IL May 2011.
Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening NEJM April 3, 2014 Vol 3 Imperiale, T.F. et al Presented by Melissa Spera, MD.
HOW STANDING ORDERS HELPED US IMPROVE CANCER SCREENING: REPORT FROM A NEW PPRNet MEMBER JULIO A SAVINON, MD RIO GRANDE MEDICINE INC. HARLINGEN, TX.
Somaiya Medical College and Maina Foundation Five Year Project for Raising breast Cancer Awareness in Pratikshanagar - Mumbai.
Meta-Analysis of PSA Growth Lurdes Y.T. Inoue, Ph.D. Ruth Etzioni, Ph.D. Elizabeth Slate, Ph.D. Christopher Morrel, Ph.D.
The Early Detection of Disease –Statistical Challenges Marvin Zelen Harvard University The R.A. Fisher Memorial Lecture August 1, 2007 Joint Statistical.
ANALYZING CLINICAL QUESTIONS Turning Your PICO into a search strategy
Geriatric Health Maintenance: Cancer Screening Linda DeCherrie, MD Geriatric Fellow Mount Sinai Hospital.
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention-focus on Cancer Edward Anselm, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical.
Breast Cancer Detection, Treatment, and Survival in Medicare and Medicaid Insured Patients Cathy J. Bradley, Ph.D. Professor of Health Administration Co-leader,
Stage-specific survival of screen-detected versus clinically diagnosed colorectal cancer - evidence from the FOBT screening trials- Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar.
Knowledge, Cancer Fatalism and Spirituality as Predictors of Breast Cancer Screening Practices for African American and Caucasian Women Staci T. Anderson,
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Incidence, Survival and Treatment Linda C. Harlan, PhD, MPH National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and.
Disparities in Cancer September 22, Introduction Despite notable advances in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment, a disproportionate number.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Advancing Excellence in Health Care US Preventive Services Task Force Diana Petitti, MD, MPH Arizona.
1 Lecture 20: Non-experimental studies of interventions Describe the levels of evaluation (structure, process, outcome) and give examples of measures of.
Decision Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests by Age to Begin, Age to End, and Screening Intervals: Report to the United States Preventive Services.
Modeled Estimates of the Effects of Screening: Results from the CISNET Breast Cancer Consortium International Breast Cancer Screening Network Biennial.
EPIB-591 Screening Jean-François Boivin 29 September
Estimating the Burden of Disease Examining the impact of changing risk factors on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality Karen M. Kuntz, ScD Cancer.
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care:
INCIDENCE AND SURVIVAL TRENDS OF COLORECTAL CANCER FROM 2002 TO 2011 BE Ansa; E Alema-Mensah; MD Claridy; JQ Sheats; B Fontenot, and SA Smith Georgia Regents.
Cancer Healthy Kansans 2010 Steering Committee Meeting May 12, 2005.
“The African American Prostate Cancer Crisis in Numbers”
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Women’s Health Initiative Branch Jacques Rossouw, MD Chief, WHI Branch Program for Prevention and Population.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC): Impact of the BCSC What is left to be done Stephen Taplin, MD, MPH, Senior Scientist NCI/DCCPS/ARP BCSC Program.
HW215: Models of Health & Wellness Unit 7: Health and Wellness Models Geo-political Influences.
Jo Anne Zujewski, MD Clinical Investigations Branch Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program Division of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment May 2011 The Global Burden.
 Volunteer bias  Lead time bias  Length bias  Stage migration bias  Pseudodisease.
Joni Reynolds, RN-CNS, MSN Director of Public Health Programs Winnable Battles: Cancer in Colorado.
Cost-effectiveness of Screening Tests Mark Hlatky, MD Stanford University.
Breast Cancer in the Women’s Health Initiative Trial of Estrogen Plus Progestin For the WHI Investigators Rowan T Chlebowski, MD., Ph.D.
Modeling Efforts to Inform Countries’ Screening Decisions Ann Graham Zauber, Iris Vogelaar, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Deb Schrag, Rob Boer, Dik Habbema,
Diversity and the Burden of Cancer David C. Momrow, M.P.H. Senior Vice President of Cancer Control American Cancer Society – Eastern Division January 21,
Unit 15: Screening. Unit 15 Learning Objectives: 1.Understand the role of screening in the secondary prevention of disease. 2.Recognize the characteristics.
Senior Statistician Per-Henrik Zahl, MA MD PhD
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC): A Research Infrastructure sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Models William Barlow,
1 CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ARIES mCRC: Effectiveness and Safety of 1st- and 2nd-line Bevacizumab Treatment in Elderly Patients Mark Kozloff, MD.
BC Cancer Agency CARE & RESEARCH Breast Cancer Mortality After Screening Mammography in British Columbia Women Andrew J. Coldman, Ph.D. Norm Phillips,
Screening – a discussion in clinical preventive medicine Galit M Sacajiu MD MPH.
Date of download: 5/28/2016 From: Benefits and Harms of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Strategies: A Comparative Modeling Study for the U.S.
CT Screening for Lung Cancer vs. Smoking Cessation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Pamela M. McMahon, PhD; Chung Yin Kong, PhD; Bruce E. Johnson; Milton.
Breast Cancer 1. Leukemia & Lymphoma New diagnoses each year in the US: 112, 610 Adults 5,720 Children 43,340 died of leukemia or lymphoma in
Date of download: 5/31/2016 From: Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 Years: A Comparative Modeling.
Date of download: 5/31/2016 From: Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Supplemental Ultrasonography Screening for Women With Dense Breasts Ann Intern.
Date of download: 6/1/2016 From: Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms.
Uses of Cancer Data by RTPCT Cancer Chapter of the Public Health Annual Report 2003 Dr José M Ortega.
Breast Cancer Screening 1. 2 Methods 3 Mammography.
Date of download: 6/29/2016 From: Overdiagnosis of Invasive Breast Cancer Due to Mammography Screening: Results From the Norwegian Screening Program Ann.
Screening Tests: A Review. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand the role of screening in the secondary prevention of disease. 2.Recognize the characteristics.
Date of download: 7/6/2016 From: Comparative Effectiveness of Alternative Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Prostate Cancer Screening Strategies: Model Estimates.
How Do We Individualize Guidelines in an Era of Personalized Medicine? Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS VA Palo Alto Health Care System Stanford University, Stanford.
Cancer prevention and early detection
Cancer prevention and early detection
TMIST A Breast Cancer Screening Trial
Cancer Screening Guidelines
Rafael Meza Department of Epidemiology University of Michigan
Mammograms and Breast Exams: When to start /stop mammograms
Background & Objectives
Definition of Cancer Screening
From: Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 YearsA Comparative Modeling Study of Risk Ann Intern.
Prostate cancer isn’t colorblind
Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. doi: /nrclinonc
Breast Cancer Guideline Update – Sharp Focus on Who is at Risk
Presentation transcript:

CISNET and BCSC: Working Together To Model The Population Impact Breast Cancer Screening A Celebration of the Work of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium April 27, 2010 Kathleen Cronin Surveillance Research Program National Cancer Institute

Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET)  NCI Sponsored Consortium of Modelers Focused on Modeling of the Impact of Cancer Control Interventions on Current and Future Population Trends in Incidence and Mortality Optimal Cancer Control Planning  15 funded grantees in Breast, Prostate, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer  Comparative modeling approach Base Cases - joint modeling exercises with common inputs Model Profiler - series of templates for describing models

Breast Cancer Investigators in CISNET Dana Farber - Marvin Zelen, Sandra Lee Erasmus University – Dik Habbema, Harry de Koning Georgetown University – Jeanne Mandelblatt MD Anderson – Donald Berry Stanford University – Sylvia Plevritis University of Rochester – Andrei Yakovlev University of Wisconsin – Dennis Fryback NCI – Rocky Feuer, Kathy Cronin

General Formulation of CISNET Models Risk Factors Screening Behavior Diffusion of New Treatments Cancer Models Example Outputs: Mortality Incidence Quality–Adjusted Life Years Overdiagnosis Medical costs Common Inputs Simulation or Analytical Model Common Outputs: Benefits and Harms of Interventions

Development and Validation of Breast Cancer Natural History Models BCSC data played a key role in the development and validation of the central cancer models that represent the natural history of disease  Characteristics of cases conditioned on the time since last screening test  Characteristics of screen detected cases Stage distribution ER status  Age dependent sensitivity and specificity of mammography False positive rates Unnecessary biopsies

Modeling the Dissemination and Usage of Mammography in the US Population BCSC provided data on repeat mammography use and collaborated with CISNET to develop a model to describe the patterns of mammography use in the population  Classified women who ever have a mammogram into categories of screeners Annual Biennial Irregular  Use longitudinal data on individual women to estimate the time between successive screening exams for each category

Distribution of Screening Categories By Age

Time Between Subsequent Screening Exams For Women age Annual Biennial Irregular

Modeled Mammography Screening Over Time, Women age Biennial

Application: Modeling the Impact of Screening and Adjuvant Treatment On Breast Cancer Mortality Observed US Mortality No Screening or Adjuvant Treatment Screening only Treatment Only Both Screening and Treatment

Estimated Percent Decline in Mortality Due To Screening and Adjuvant Therapy For The 7 Models Berry et al. N Engl J Med 2005: Seven statistical models showed that both screening mammography and treatment have helped reduce the rates of death from breast cancer

Application: Modeling the Harms and Benefits of Different Screening Schedules  Analysis requested by the USPSTF  Two primary measures of benefit (vs. no screening): % reduction in breast cancer mortality Life years gained (per 1000 women)  Exposure to harms: False positive screens Number of un-necessary biopsies Detection of tumors never destined to cause breast cancer death (“over diagnosis”)

Breast Cancer Screening Strategies Annual Biennial #Strategy 0No Screening

D G S M E W B60-69 B50-84 A40-84 B60-69 B50-79 B40-84 A40-84 B60-69 B50-79 A40-84 B50-84 B60-69 B50-69 A40-84 B40-84 B60-69 B50-74 B40-84 A40-84 B50-84 B60-69 B55-69 B50-84 A40-84 B50-74 B40-84 B55-69 B40-84 B55-69 B50-84 B55-69 B50-69 B50-79 B50-69 B50-74 B50-79 B50-74 B50-69 B55-69 B50-69 B50-74 B40-84 B55-69 B B50-84 B50-79 B50-69 Efficiency frontier for each model Each dot is a strategy (Red dot is annual screening ages 40-79) All models reached qualitatively similar results Moving from annual to biennial maintains on average 81% of the benefits with reduced harms

Looking Ahead  BCSC continues to be a primary resource for the CISNET consortium on many levels Population level data on screening usage and outcomes not available elsewhere Provide expertise on use and interpretation of data Active collaborator on a number of research questions  Next Steps Activities to Promote Research Collaborations (APRC) – CISNET/BCSC/EPC Compare effectiveness of film vs. digital in subgroups of women Grand Opportunities (GO) Grant Compare clinical and cost-effectiveness of various screening strategies