Bayesian negative-binomial-family-based multistate Markov model for the evaluation of periodic population-based cancer screening considering incomplete information and measurement errors
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2018
Bayesian negative-binomial-family-based multistate Markov model for the evaluation of periodic population-based cancer screening considering incomplete information and measurement errors
Population-based cancer screening is often asked but hardly addressed by a question: “How many rounds of screening are required before identifying a cancer of interest staying in the pre-clinical detectable phase (PCDP)?” and also a similar one related to the number of screens required for stopping screening for the low risk group. It can be answered by using longitudinal follow-up data on repeated rounds of screen, namely periodic screen, but such kind of data are rather complicated and fraught with intractable statistical properties including correlated multistate outcomes, unobserved and incomplete (censoring or truncation) information, and imperfect measurements. We therefore developed a negative-binomial-family-based discrete-time stochastic process, taking sensitivity and specificity into account, to accommodate these thorny issues. The estimation of parameters was implemented with Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. We demonstrated how to apply this proposed negative-binomial-family-based model to the empirical data similar to the Finnish breast cancer screening program.
ChenHHChiuYHLuhDLet al.Community-based multiple screening model: design, implementation, and analysis of 42,387 participants. Cancer2004; 100: 1734–1743.
2.
WuJCAnttilaAYenAMFet al.Evaluation of breast cancer service screening programme with a Bayesian approach: mortality analysis in a Finnish region. Breast Cancer Res Treat2010; 121: 671–678.
3.
WuJCHakamaMAnttilaAet al.Estimation of natural history parameters of breast cancer based on non-randomized organized screening data: subsidiary analysis of effects of inter-screening interval, sensitivity, and attendance rate on reduction of advanced cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat2010; 122: 553–566.
4.
HewitsonPGlasziouPWatsonEet al.Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol2008; 103: 1541–1549.
5.
TabárLVitakBChenHHet al.Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology2011; 260: 658–663.
6.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet2012; 380: 1778–1786.
7.
BrennerHStockCHoffmeisterM. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ2014; 348: g2467–g2467.
8.
TabárLFaberbergGDayNEet al.What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial. Br J Cancer1987; 55: 547–551.
9.
ChenHHDuffySWDayNE. Markov chain models for progression of breast cancer. Part I: tumour attributes and the preclinical screen-detectable phase. J Epidemio Biostat1997; 2: 9–23.
10.
ChenHHDuffySWTabárLet al.Markov chain models for progression of breast cancer. Part II: prediction of outcomes for different screening regimes. J Epidemio Biostat1997; 2: 23–35.
11.
ChenHHYenAM-FTabárL. A stochastic model for calibrating the survival benefit of screen-detected cancers. J Am Stat Assoc2012; 107: 1339–1359.
12.
ChenHHTabarLFagerbergGet al.Effect of breast cancer screening after age 65. J Med Screen1995; 2: 10–14.
13.
DuffySWChenHHTabarLet al.Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-49. Int J Epidemiol1996; 25: 1139–1145.
14.
DuffySWDayNETabárLet al.Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr1997; 22: 93–97.
15.
ChenHHKuoHSYenMFet al.Estimation of sojourn time in chronic disease screening without data on interval cases. Biometrics2000; 56: 167–172.
16.
HsiehHJChenTHChangSH. Assessing chronic disease progression using non-homogeneous exponential regression Markov models: an illustration using a selective breast cancer screening in Taiwan. Stat Med2002; 21: 3369–3382.
17.
ChenHHDuffySWTabárL. A Markov chain method to estimate the tumour progression rate from preclinical to clinical phase, sensitivity and positive predictive value for mammography in breast cancer screening. J R Stat Soc Series D1996; 45: 307–317.
18.
ChiuSYDuffySYenAMet al.Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2010; 19: 1219–1228.
19.
SarkealaTAnttilaAForsmanHet al.Process indicators from ten centres in the Finnish breast cancer screening programme from 1991 to 2000. Eur J Cancer2004; 40: 2116–2125.
20.
CoxDRMillerHD. The Theory of Stochastic Processes, London: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, 1977.
21.
ChiangCL. Introduction to Stochastic Process and their Applications, Ch 5, New York: Jhon Wiley & Sons, 1980.
22.
TabárLFagerbergGChenHHet al.Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer1995; 75: 2507–2517.
23.
WalterSDDayNE. Estimation of the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data. Am J Epidemiol1983; 118: 865–886.
24.
Hilbe JM. Negative Binomial Regression. 2nd ed. Ch 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
25.
ChenHHDuffySWTabárL. A mover-stayer mixture of Markov chain models for the assessment of dedifferentiation and tumour progression in breast cancer. J Appl Stat1997; 24: 265–278.
26.
JacksonCHJitMSharplesLDet al.Calibration of complex models through Bayesian evidence synthesis: a demonstration and tutorial. Med Decis Making2015; 35: 148–161.
