The ONCOTYROL Prostate Cancer Outcome and Policy Model: Effect of Prevalence Assumptions on the Benefit-Harm Balance of Screening

被引:8
|
作者
Muehlberger, Nikolai [1 ,2 ]
Kurzthaler, Christina [1 ,2 ]
Iskandar, Rowan [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Krahn, Murray D. [4 ,5 ]
Bremner, Karen E. [5 ]
Oberaigner, Willi [6 ]
Klocker, Helmut [7 ]
Horninger, Wolfgang [7 ]
Conrads-Frank, Annette [1 ,2 ]
Sroczynski, Gaby [1 ,2 ]
Siebert, Uwe [1 ,2 ,8 ,9 ,10 ]
机构
[1] UMIT Univ Hlth Sci Med Informat & Technol, Dept Publ Hlth & Hlth Technol Assessment, Tyrol, Austria
[2] ONCOTYROL Ctr Personalized Canc Med, Div Hlth Technol Assessment & Bioinformat, Innsbruck, Austria
[3] Univ Minnesota, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Minneapolis, MN USA
[4] Univ Toronto, THETA Collaborat, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Toronto Gen Hosp, Toronto Gen Res Inst, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] TILAK GmbH, Canc Registry Tyrol, Innsbruck, Austria
[7] Med Univ Innsbruck, Dept Urol, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
[8] Harvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Ctr Hlth Decis Sci, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[9] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Inst Technol Assessment, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[10] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Radiol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
关键词
decision analysis; Markov models; simulation methods; prostate cancer; cancer prevention; SERVICES TASK-FORCE; COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; RECOMMENDATION STATEMENT; FOLLOW-UP; INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; POTENTIAL BENEFITS; DECISION-ANALYSIS; ANTIGEN; STRATEGIES;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X15585114
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. The ONCOTYROL Prostate Cancer Outcome and Policy (PCOP) model is a state-transition microsimulation model evaluating the benefits and harms of prostate cancer (PCa) screening. The natural history and detection component of the original model was based on the 2003 version of the Erasmus MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model, which was not calibrated to prevalence data. Compared with data from autopsy studies, prevalence of latent PCa assumed by the original model is low, which may bias the model toward screening. Our objective was to recalibrate the original model to match prevalence data from autopsy studies as well and compare benefit-harm predictions of the 2 model versions differing in prevalence. Methods. For recalibration, we reprogrammed the natural history and detection component of the PCOP model as a deterministic Markov state-transition cohort model in the statistical software package R. All parameters were implemented as variables or time-dependent functions and calibrated simultaneously in a single run. Observed data used as calibration targets included data from autopsy studies, cancer registries, and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Compared models were identical except for calibrated parameters. Results. We calibrated 46 parameters. Prevalence from autopsy studies could not be fitted using the original parameter set. Additional parameters, allowing for interruption of disease progression and age-dependent screening sensitivities, were needed. Recalibration to higher prevalence demonstrated a considerable increase of overdiagnosis and decline of screening sensitivity, which significantly worsened the benefit-harm balance of screening. Conclusions. Our calibration suggests that not all cancers are at risk of progression, and screening sensitivity may be lower at older ages. PCa screening models that use calibration to simulate disease progression in the unobservable latent phase are highly sensitive to prevalence assumptions.
引用
收藏
页码:758 / 772
页数:15
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] THE ONCOTYROL PROSTATE CANCER OUTCOME AND POLICY MODEL - HOW LATENT PREVALENCE AFFECTS THE BENEFIT-HARM BALANCE OF SCREENING
    Muehlberger, N.
    Heijnsdijk, E. A. M.
    Kurzthaler, C.
    Iskandar, R.
    Krahn, M. D.
    Bremner, K.
    Oberaigner, W.
    Klocker, H.
    Horninger, W.
    Conrads-Frank, A.
    Sroczynski, G.
    Siebert, U.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2014, 17 (07) : A559 - A559
  • [2] NEW CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING POLICY IN GERMANY - WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE BENEFIT-HARM BALANCE?
    Sroczynski, G.
    Hillemanns, P.
    Siebert, U.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 : S443 - S443
  • [3] Benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening - predictions of the ONCOTYROL prostate cancer outcome and policy model
    Muehlberger, Nikolai
    Boskovic, Kristijan
    Krahn, Murray D.
    Bremner, Karen E.
    Oberaigner, Willi
    Klocker, Helmut
    Horninger, Wolfgang
    Sroczynski, Gaby
    Siebert, Uwe
    [J]. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2017, 17
  • [4] Benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening – predictions of the ONCOTYROL prostate cancer outcome and policy model
    Nikolai Mühlberger
    Kristijan Boskovic
    Murray D. Krahn
    Karen E. Bremner
    Willi Oberaigner
    Helmut Klocker
    Wolfgang Horninger
    Gaby Sroczynski
    Uwe Siebert
    [J]. BMC Public Health, 17
  • [5] MRI-first screening for prostate cancer: A benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness analysis
    Callender, Thomas
    Emberton, Mark
    Morris, Steve
    Pharoah, Paul
    Pashayan, Nora
    [J]. CANCER RESEARCH, 2020, 80 (16)
  • [6] Polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer: A benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modelling study
    Callender, Tom
    Emberton, Mark
    Morris, Steve
    Eeles, Ros
    Kote-Jarai, Zsofia
    Pharoah, Paul D. P.
    Pashayan, Nora
    [J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2019, 16 (12)
  • [7] THE BENEFIT-HARM FRONTIER OF DIFFERENT PRIMARY SCREENING STRATEGIES FOR CERVICAL CANCER IN GERMANY
    Sroczynski, G.
    Esteban, E.
    Engel, J.
    Hillemanns, P.
    Petry, K. -U
    Kraemer, A.
    Schnell-Inderst, P.
    Muehlberger, N.
    Siebert, U.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2013, 16 (07) : A574 - A575
  • [8] Benefit-harm analysis for informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer screening: a modelling study
    Van Wifferen, Francine
    Yebyo, Henock G.
    Pluymen, Linda P. m.
    Leeflang, Mariska M. g.
    Dekker, Evelien
    Coupe, Veerle M. h.
    Puhan, Milo A.
    Greuter, Marjolein J. e.
    Stegeman, Inge
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2024, 44 (02) : NP154 - NP156
  • [9] Lung Cancer Screening: The Balance between Harm and Benefit Reply
    Tanoue, Lynn T.
    Tanner, Nichole T.
    Gould, Michael K.
    Silvestri, Gerard A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2015, 191 (10) : 1209 - 1210
  • [10] Benefit-Harm Analysis for Informed Decision Making on Participating in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study
    Yebyo, Henock G.
    van Wifferen, Francine
    Pluymen, Linda P. M.
    Leeflang, Mariska M. G.
    Dekker, Evelien
    Coupe, Veerle M. H.
    Puhan, Milo A.
    Greuter, Marjolein J. E.
    Stegeman, Inge
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2024, 27 (04) : 397 - 404