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
  • [21] Improved Harm/Benefit Ratio and Cost-effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening Using New Technologies
    Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.
    de Koning, Harry J.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2022, 82 (01) : 20 - 21
  • [22] Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet
    Ancelle-Park, R.
    Armaroli, P.
    Ascunce, N.
    Bisanti, L.
    Bellisario, C.
    Broeders, M.
    Cogo, C.
    de Koning, H.
    Duffy, S. W.
    Frigerio, A.
    Giordano, L.
    Hofvind, S.
    Jonsson, H.
    Lynge, E.
    Massat, N.
    Miccinesi, G.
    Moss, S.
    Naldoni, C.
    Njor, S.
    Nystrom, L.
    Paap, E.
    Paci, E.
    Patnick, J.
    Ponti, A.
    Puliti, D.
    Segnan, N.
    Von Karsa, L.
    Tornberg, S.
    Zappa, M.
    Zorzi, M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2012, 19 : 5 - 13
  • [23] Absolute Effect of Prostate Cancer Screening: Balance of Benefits and Harms by Center within the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening
    Auvinen, Anssi
    Moss, Sue M.
    Tammela, Teuvo L. J.
    Taari, Kimmo
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Schroder, Fritz H.
    Bangma, Chris H.
    Carlsson, Sigrid
    Aus, Gunnar
    Zappa, Marco
    Puliti, Donella
    Denis, Louis J.
    Nelen, Vera
    Kwiatkowski, Maciej
    Randazzo, Marco
    Paez, Alvaro
    Lujan, Marcos
    Hugosson, Jonas
    [J]. CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 22 (01) : 243 - 249
  • [24] HETEROGENITY IN POLICY EFFECT: CHANGES IN PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING ASSOCIATED WITH ACO PARTICIPATION
    Luckenbaugh, Amy
    Lai, Christine
    Haddad, Diane
    Resnick, Matthew
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E413 - E413
  • [25] Effect of cancer risk and patient preferences on net benefit of lung cancer screening: A personalized lung cancer screening model
    Cao, Pianpian
    Caverly, Tanner
    Hayward, Rodney
    Meza, Rafael
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2017, 26 (05)
  • [26] EXAMINING THE EFFECT OF CANCER RISK AND PATIENT PREFERENCES ON THE NET BENEFIT OF LUNG CANCER SCREENING: A PERSONALIZED LUNG CANCER SCREENING MODEL
    Caverly, Tanner
    Cao, Pianpian
    Hayward, Rodney A.
    Meza, Rafael
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 31 : S219 - S219
  • [27] Extending Age Ranges in Breast Cancer Screening in Four European Countries: Model Estimations of Harm-to-Benefit Ratios
    Zielonke, Nadine
    Geuzinge, Amarens
    Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.
    Heinavaara, Sirpa
    Senore, Carlo
    Jarm, Katja
    de Koning, Harry
    van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.
    [J]. CANCERS, 2021, 13 (13)
  • [28] Absolute Effect of Prostate Cancer Screening: Balance of Benefits and Harms by Center within the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening (vol 22, pg 243, 2016)
    Auvinen, A.
    Moss, S. M.
    Tammela, T. L.
    Taari, K.
    Roobol, M. J.
    Schroeder, F. H.
    [J]. CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 22 (14) : 3702 - 3702
  • [29] Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer A Life-Table Model
    Pashayan, Nora
    Morris, Steve
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    Pharoah, Paul D. P.
    [J]. JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2018, 4 (11) : 1504 - 1510
  • [30] Benefit, Harm, and Cost-effectiveness Associated With Magnetic Resonance Imaging Before Biopsy in Age-based and Risk-stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer
    Callender, Thomas
    Emberton, Mark
    Morris, Stephen
    Pharoah, Paul D. P.
    Pashayan, Nora
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2021, 4 (03)