Medical Decision Making

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldie, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kuntz, K. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldie, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kuntz, K. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 23, No. 3, 232-241 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03023003005

A Potential Error in Evaluating Cancer Screening: A Comparison of 2 Approaches for Modeling Underlying Disease Progression

Sue J. Goldie, MD, MPH

Karen M. Kuntz, ScD

Background. Evaluating cancer screening often requires modeling the underlying disease process and not observed disease, particularly in the absence of direct evidence linking screening to a survival benefit. Methods. To illustrate a potential error in modeling disease progression among healthy persons with a history of a precancerous lesion, we constructed 2 models with 4 basic health states (disease free, presence of a precancerous lesion, presence of cancer, dead), calibrated to predict the same 10-year cancer incidence. We assumed a homogeneous cohort enters each model free of disease, the probability of developing a precancerous lesion was greater for patients with a history of a prior lesion, and the screening test was perfect and riskless. In one model, we assigned a higher transition probability from a precancerous lesion to cancer in those with a history of a previously removed lesion; in the other, we assumed it was equal to those with no history. Results. Using the 1st model, life expectancy without screening was 2.4 months longer than with screening. This error did not occur using the 2nd model, in which the transition from precancerous lesions to cancer was not conditional on a history of a lesion. This modeling error's magnitude was examined under a variety of assumptions. Conclusions. We have identified an important error to avoid when modeling the underlying disease process in evaluating screening programs for cancers associated with precancerous states.

Key Words: model errors • cancer screening • Markov models


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur J Public HealthHome page
U. Siebert, G. Sroczynski, P. Hillemanns, J. Engel, R. Stabenow, C. Stegmaier, K. Voigt, B. Gibis, D. Holzel, and S. J. Goldie
The German Cervical Cancer Screening Model: development and validation of a decision-analytic model for cervical cancer screening in Germany
Eur J Public Health, April 1, 2006; 16(2): 185 - 192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
S. G Baker, B. S Kramer, M. McIntosh, B. H Patterson, Y. Shyr, and S. Skates
Evaluating markers for the early detection of cancer: overview of study designs and methods
Clinical Trials, February 1, 2006; 3(1): 43 - 56.
[Abstract] [PDF]