Search

The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Working Group is a consortium of National Cancer Institute–sponsored investigators who use statistical and simulation modeling to evaluate the impact of cancer control interventions on long-term population-level breast cancer outcomes such as incidence and mortality and to determine the impact of different breast cancer control strategies. The CISNET breast cancer models have been continuously funded since 2000. The models have gone through several updates since their inception to reflect advances in the understanding of the molecular basis of breast cancer, changes in the prevalence of common risk factors, and improvements in therapy and early detection technology. This article provides an overview and history of the CISNET breast cancer models, provides an overview of the major changes in the model inputs over time, and presents examples for how CISNET breast cancer models have been used for policy evaluation.

PurposeGreat uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole-genome sequencing (WGS).MethodsOne hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family-history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months.ResultsThe incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and $5,073 in primary care settings compared with family history alone. Mean 6-month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = -$1,560, 95% confidence interval -$7,558 to $3,866, p = 0.36; primary care: difference = $681, 95% confidence interval -$884 to $2,171, p = 0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and $182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively.ConclusionShort-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream health care. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure.Genetics in Medicine advance online publication, 22 March 2018; doi:10.1038/gim.2018.35.

Background: Despite trials of mammography and widespread use, optimal screening policy is controversial. Objective: To evaluate U. S. breast cancer screening strategies. Design: 6 models using common data elements. Data Sources: National data on age-specific incidence, competing mortality, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects. Target Population: A contemporary population cohort. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Interventions: 20 screening strategies with varying initiation and cessation ages applied annually or biennially. Outcome Measures: Number of mammograms, reduction in deaths from breast cancer or life-years gained (vs. no screening), false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies, and overdiagnosis. Results of Base-Case Analysis: The 6 models produced consistent rankings of screening strategies. Screening biennially maintained an average of 81% (range across strategies and models, 67% to 99%) of the benefit of annual screening with almost half the number of false-positive results. Screening biennially from ages 50 to 69 years achieved a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in breast cancer deaths versus no screening. Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results. Biennial screening after age 69 years yielded some additional mortality reduction in all models, but overdiagnosis increased most substantially at older ages. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Varying test sensitivity or treatment patterns did not change conclusions. Limitation: Results do not include morbidity from false-positive results, patient knowledge of earlier diagnosis, or unnecessary treatment. Conclusion: Biennial screening achieves most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm. Decisions about the best strategy depend on program and individual objectives and the weight placed on benefits, harms, and resource considerations.