Modeling the natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ based on population data

Background: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased substantially since the introduction of mammography screening. Nevertheless, little is known about the natural history of preclinical DCIS in the absence of biopsy or complete excision. Methods: Two well-established population models evaluated six possible DCIS natural history submodels. The submodels assumed 30%, 50%, or 80% of breast lesions progress from undetectable DCIS to preclinical screen-detectable DCIS; each model additionally allowed or prohibited DCIS regression. Preclinical screen-detectable DCIS could also progress to clinical DCIS or invasive breast cancer (IBC). Applying US population screening dissemination patterns, the models projected age-specific DCIS and IBC incidence that were compared to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Models estimated mean sojourn time (MST) in the preclinical screen-detectable DCIS state, overdiagnosis, and the risk of progression from preclinical screen-detectable DCIS. Results: Without biopsy and surgical excision, the majority of DCIS (64-100%) in the preclinical screen-detectable state progressed to IBC in submodels assuming no DCIS regression (36-100% in submodels allowing for DCIS regression). DCIS overdiagnosis differed substantially between models and submodels, 3.1-65.8%. IBC overdiagnosis ranged 1.3-2.4%. Submodels assuming DCIS regression resulted in a higher DCIS overdiagnosis than submodels without DCIS regression. MST for progressive DCIS varied between 0.2 and 2.5 years. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the majority of screen-detectable but unbiopsied preclinical DCIS lesions progress to IBC and that the MST is relatively short. Nevertheless, due to the heterogeneity of DCIS, more research is needed to understand the progression of DCIS by grades and molecular subtypes

Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches

Background. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be a precursor to invasive breast cancer. Since the advent of screening mammography in the 1980’s, the incidence of DCIS has increased dramatically. The value of screen detection and treatment of DCIS, however, is a matter of controversy, as it is unclear the extent to which detection and treatment of DCIS prevents invasive disease and reduces breast cancer mortality. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of existing Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modelling Network (CISNET) modeling approaches for the natural history of DCIS, and to compare these to other modeling approaches reported in the literature. Design. Five of the 6 CISNET models currently include DCIS. Most models assume that some, but not all, lesions progress to invasive cancer. The natural history of DCIS cannot be directly observed and the CISNET models differ in their assumptions and in the data sources used to estimate the DCIS model parameters. Results. These model differences translate into variation in outcomes, such as the amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, with estimates ranging from 34% to 72% for biennial screening from ages 50 to 74 y. The other models described in the literature also report a large range in outcomes, with progression rates varying from 20% to 91%. Limitations. DCIS grade was not yet included in the CISNET models. Conclusion. In the future, DCIS data by grade from active surveillance trials, the development of predictive markers of progression probability, and evidence from other screening modalities, such as tomosynthesis, may be used to inform and improve the models’ representation of DCIS, and might lead to convergence of the model estimates. Until then, the CISNET model results consistently show a considerable amount of overdiagnosis of DCIS, supporting the safety and value of observational trials for low-risk DCIS

Long-term Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the United States

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasingly being used for routine breast cancer screening. We projected the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of DBT compared to conventional digital mammography (DM) for breast cancer screening in the United States.MethodsThree Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models simulated US women ages 40 years and older undergoing breast cancer screening with either DBT or DM starting in 2011 and continuing for the lifetime of the cohort. Screening performance estimates were based on observational data; in an alternative scenario, we assumed 4% higher sensitivity for DBT. Analyses used federal payer perspective; costs and utilities were discounted at 3% annually. Outcomes included breast cancer deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive examinations, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsCompared to DM, DBT screening resulted in a slight reduction in breast cancer deaths (range across models 0-0.21 per 1000 women), small increase in QALYs (1.97-3.27 per 1000 women), and a 24-28% reduction in false-positive exams (237-268 per 1000 women) relative to DM. ICERs ranged from 195 026 to 270 135 per QALY for DBT relative to DM. When assuming 4% higher DBT sensitivity, ICERs decreased to 130 533-156 624 per QALY. ICERs were sensitive to DBT costs, decreasing to 78 731 to 168 883 and 52 918 to 118 048 when the additional cost of DBT was reduced to $36 and$26 (from baseline of $56), respectively.ConclusionDBT reduces false-positive exams while achieving similar or slightly improved health benefits. At current reimbursement rates, the additional costs of DBT screening are likely high relative to the benefits gained; however, DBT could be cost-effective at lower screening costs

Using Collaborative Simulation Modeling to Develop a Web-Based Tool to Support Policy-Level Decision Making About Breast Cancer Screening Initiation Age

Background: There are no publicly available tools designed specifically to assist policy makers to make informed decisions about the optimal ages of breast cancer screening initiation for different populations of US women. Objective: To use three established simulation models to develop a web-based tool called Mammo OUTPuT. Methods: The simulation models use the 1970 US birth cohort and common parameters for incidence, digital screening performance, and treatment effects. Outcomes include breast cancers diagnosed, breast cancer deaths averted, breast cancer mortality reduction, false-positive mammograms, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis. The Mammo OUTPuT tool displays these outcomes for combinations of age at screening initiation (every year from 40 to 49), annual versus biennial interval, lifetime versus 10-year horizon, and breast density, compared to waiting to start biennial screening at age 50 and continuing to 74. The tool was piloted by decision makers (n = 16) who completed surveys. Results: The tool demonstrates that benefits in the 40s increase linearly with earlier initiation age, without a specific threshold age. Likewise, the harms of screening increase monotonically with earlier ages of initiation in the 40s. The tool also shows users how the balance of benefits and harms varies with breast density. Surveys revealed that 100% of users (16/16) liked the appearance of the site; 94% (15/16) found the tool helpful; and 94% (15/16) would recommend the tool to a colleague. Conclusions: This tool synthesizes a representative subset of the most current CISNET (Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network) simulation model outcomes to provide policy makers with quantitative data on the benefits and harms of screening women in the 40s. Ultimate decisions will depend on program goals, the population served, and informed judgments about the weight of benefits and harms