Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Apr;38(1_suppl):140S-150S.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X17718168.

Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49

Jeroen J van den Broek  1 , Nicolien T van Ravesteyn  1 , Jeanne S Mandelblatt  2 , Hui Huang  3 , Mehmet Ali Ergun  4 , Elizabeth S Burnside  5 , Cong Xu  6 , Yisheng Li  7 , Oguzhan Alagoz  4 , Sandra J Lee  3 , Natasha K Stout  8 , Juhee Song  7 , Amy Trentham-Dietz  4 , Sylvia K Plevritis  6 , Sue M Moss  9 , Harry J de Koning  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49

Jeroen J van den Broek et al. Med Decis Making. 2018 Apr.

Abstract

Background: The UK Age trial compared annual mammography screening of women ages 40 to 49 years with no screening and found a statistically significant breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up but not at the 17-year follow-up. The objective of this study was to compare the observed Age trial results with the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer model predicted results.

Methods: Five established CISNET breast cancer models used data on population demographics, screening attendance, and mammography performance from the Age trial together with extant natural history parameters to project breast cancer incidence and mortality in the control and intervention arm of the trial.

Results: The models closely reproduced the effect of annual screening from ages 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence. Restricted to breast cancer deaths originating from cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase, the models estimated an average 15% (range across models, 13% to 17%) breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up compared with 25% (95% CI, 3% to 42%) observed in the trial. At the 17-year follow-up, the models predicted 13% (range, 10% to 17%) reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with the non-significant 12% (95% CI, -4% to 26%) in the trial.

Conclusions: The models underestimated the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality at the 10-year follow-up. Overall, the models captured the observed long-term effect of screening from age 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence and mortality in the UK Age trial, suggesting that the model structures, input parameters, and assumptions about breast cancer natural history are reasonable for estimating the impact of screening on mortality in this age group.

Keywords: CISNET; breast cancer models; external validation; mammography trial simulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Control group breast cancer incidence (DCIS and invasive separately) per 100,000 women, compared to the Age trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Intervention group breast cancer incidence (DCIS and invasive separate) per 100,000 women, compared to the Age trial.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Intervention group (screen detected) breast cancer incidence per 100,000 women. Screening ceased at age 48 in the Age trial.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Intervention group (clinically diagnosed) breast cancer incidence per 100,000 women.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Cumulative breast cancer deaths averted per 100,000 women*. *Cumulative breast cancer deaths averted only using breast cancer deaths from cancers diagnosed in the intervention period per 100.000 women. Calculated by the rate of breast cancer deaths in the control group minus the rate of breast cancer deaths in the intervention group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):733–43. - PubMed
    1. Plevritis S, Munoz D, Kurian A, Alagoz O, Near AM, Stout NK, et al. Contributions of screening and systemic therapy to molecular subtype specific U.S. breast cancer mortality from 2000 to 2010. 2016 submitted.
    1. Mandelblatt JS, Stout NK, Schechter CB, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Krapcho M, et al. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):215–25. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1784–92. - PubMed
    1. Siu AL On behalf of the U S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279–96. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances