© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.
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
Affiliations of authors: Statistical Research and Application Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (KAC, EJF); Cornerstone Systems, Lynden, WA (LDC); Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (SKP)
Correspondence to: Kathleen A. Cronin, PhD, Statistical Research and Applications Branch, 6116 Executive Blvd., Ste. 504, Bethesda, MD 20892-8317 (e-mail: cronink{at}mail.nih.gov).
The CISNET breast cancer program is a consortium of seven research groups modeling the impact of various cancer interventions on the national trends of breast cancer incidence and mortality. Each of the modeling groups participated in a CISNET breast cancer base case analysis with the objective of assessing the impact of mammography and adjuvant therapy on breast cancer mortality between 1975 and 2000. The comparative modeling approach used to address this question allowed for a unique view into the process of modeling. Results shown here expand on those recently reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (Berry et al., N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784–92) by presenting mortality impact in several different ways to facilitate comparisons between models. Comparisons of each group's results in the context of modeling assumptions made during the process gave insight into how specific model assumptions may have affected the results. The median estimate for the percent decline in breast cancer mortality due to mammography was 15% (range of 8%–23%), and the median estimate for the percent decline in mortality due to adjuvant treatment was 19% (range of 12%–21%). A detailed discussion of the differences in modeling approaches and how those differences may have influenced the mortality results concludes the chapter.
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Guarneri and P. Conte Metastatic Breast Cancer: Therapeutic Options According to Molecular Subtypes and Prior Adjuvant Therapy Oncologist, July 1, 2009; 14(7): 645 - 656. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, C. B. Schechter, K. A. Cronin, L. D. Clarke, and E. J. Feuer Chapter 16: Modeling Cancer Natural History, Epidemiology, and Control: Reflections on the CISNET Breast Group Experience J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 122 - 126. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|