© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.
Chapter 6: Modeling the Impact of Treatment and Screening on U.S. Breast Cancer Mortality: A Bayesian Approach
Affiliations of authors: Departments of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics (DAB, YS, JV, DC, MFM), Epidemiology (MB), and Breast Medical Oncology (RT), The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (LI)
Correspondence to: Donald A. Berry, PhD, Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 447, Houston, TX 77030-4009 (e-mail: dberry{at}mdanderson.org).
Background: Breast cancer mortality (BCM) in the United States declined from 33.1 per 100 000 women in 1990 to 26.6 per 100 000 women in 2000, yielding a 19.6% relative decline in BCM since 1990. Our goal is to apportion this decline between screening and therapy and to be able to state with some certainty that these interventions affected this decline. Methods: We started with an age-appropriate population of 2 000 000 women in 1975 and monitored these women through 2000. On the basis of population data each year, we assigned screening and breast cancer to women. If a woman was diagnosed with breast cancer, we simulated a lifetime for her with death from breast cancer, and we modified this lifetime depending on the use of adjuvant therapy and whether the cancer was screen-detected. A woman's lifetime was taken as the minimum of her lifetime with death from breast cancer and her simulated natural lifetime. We used Bayesian simulation modeling, which allows for associating probability distributions with our estimates. Results: We calculated the probabilities that screening mammography and adjuvant therapy contributed to the observed decline in BCM to be 90% and 99%, respectively. The posterior mean reduction in BCM due to screening is 10.6% ± 5.7% and due to therapy is 19.5% ± 5.4%. The decrease in the hazard of BCM due to tamoxifen use for ER-positive tumors is 37% ± 14% and that due to adjuvant (nontaxane) chemotherapy is 15% ± 14%. Discussion: The spread in our posterior distributions reflect the uncertainty present in the data sources available to us. However, despite this uncertainty we conclude a high probability that both screening and improvements in therapy contributed to the reduction in BCM observed in the United States from 1990 to 2000.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. S. Mandelblatt, K. A. Cronin, S. Bailey, D. A. Berry, H. J. de Koning, G. Draisma, H. Huang, S. J. Lee, M. Munsell, S. K. Plevritis, et al. Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms Ann Intern Med, November 17, 2009; 151(10): 738 - 747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. A. Miksad, M. Gonen, T. J. Lynch, and T. G. Roberts Jr Interpreting Trial Results in Light of Conflicting Evidence: A Bayesian Analysis of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2009; 27(13): 2245 - 2252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. W. Miller, J. B. King, A. B. Ryerson, C. R. Eheman, and M. C. White Mammography Use from 2000 to 2006: State-Level Trends with Corresponding Breast Cancer Incidence Rates Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2009; 192(2): 352 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. B. Wolf and R. F. Brem Decreased Mammography Utilization in the United States: Why and How Can We Reverse the Trend? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2009; 192(2): 400 - 402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Dong, D. A. Berry, T. B. Bevers, S.-W. Kau, L. Hsu, R. L. Theriault, and Y. Shen Prognostic Role of Detection Method and Its Relationship with Tumor Biomarkers in Breast Cancer: The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2008; 17(5): 1096 - 1103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. J. Feuer Chapter 1: Modeling the Impact of Adjuvant Therapy and Screening Mammography on U.S. Breast Cancer Mortality Between 1975 and 2000: Introduction to the Problem J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 2 - 6. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. B. Mariotto, E. J. Feuer, L. C. Harlan, and J. Abrams Chapter 2: Dissemination of Adjuvant Multiagent Chemotherapy and Tamoxifen for Breast Cancer in the United States Using Estrogen Receptor Information: 1975-1999 J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 7 - 15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. D. Clarke, S. K. Plevritis, R. Boer, K. A. Cronin, and E. J. Feuer Chapter 13: A Comparative Review of CISNET Breast Models Used To Analyze U.S. Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Trends J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 96 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. F. Habbema, S. Y. G. L. Tan, and K. A. Cronin Chapter 14: Impact of Mammography on U.S. Breast Cancer Mortality, 1975-2000: Are Intermediate Outcome Measures Informative? J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 105 - 111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Cronin, E. J. Feuer, L. D. Clarke, and S. K. Plevritis Chapter 15: Impact of Adjuvant Therapy and Mammography on U.S. Mortality From 1975 to 2000: Comparison of Mortality Results From the CISNET Breast Cancer Base Case Analysis J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 112 - 121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|