Search

Background: The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the NCI collaborate every 5-8 years to update the methods for estimating numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the current year in the United States and in every state and the District of Columbia. In this article, we reevaluate the statistical method for estimating unavailable historical incident cases which are needed for projecting the current year counts. Methods: We compared the current county-level model developed in 2012 (M0) with three new models, including a state-level mixed effect model (M1) and two state-level hierarchical Bayes models with varying random effects (M2 and M3). We used 1996-2014 incidence data for 16 sex-specific cancer sites to fit the models. An average absolute relative deviation (AARD) comparing the observed with the model-specific predicted counts was calculated for each site. Models were also cross-validated for six selected sex-specific cancer sites. Results: For the cross-validation, the AARD ranged from 2.8% to 33.0% for M0, 3.3% to 31.1% for M1, 6.6% to 30.5% for M2, and 10.4% to 393.2% for M3. M1 encountered the least technical issues in terms of model convergence and running time. Conclusions: The state-level mixed effect model (M1) was overall superior in accuracy and computational efficiency and will be the new model for the ACS current year projection project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. This article presents a space-time scan statistic, useful for evaluating space4rne cluster alarms, and illustrates the method on a recent brain cancer cluster alarm in Los Alamos, NM. Methods. The space-time scan statistic accounts for the preselection bias and multiple testing inherent in a cluster alarm. Confounders and time trends can be adjusted for. Results. The observed excess of brain cancer in Los Alamos was not statistically significant. Conclusions. The space-time scan statistic is useful as a screening tool for evaluating which cluster alarms merit further investigation and which clusters are probably chance occurrences. (Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1377-1380)

The use of various nonparametric techniques in the analysis of cause-specific failure time data as it pertains to examples from clinical oncology data is clarified. Problems in using one minus Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimator (1-KM) in analyzing data are examined. The use of a cause-specific estimate that does not require an independent assumption would be more practical in determining probabilities.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2016 colorectal cancer screening recommendations.Objective: To provide updated model-based estimates of the benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies and to identify strategies that may provide an efficient balance of life-years gained (LYG) from screening and colonoscopy burden to inform the USPSTF.Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative modeling study using 3 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer screening in a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old US individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer.Exposures: Screening from ages 45, 50, or 55 years to ages 70, 75, 80, or 85 years with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy alone or with FIT, computed tomography colonography, or colonoscopy. All persons with an abnormal noncolonoscopy screening test result were assumed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy. Screening intervals varied by test. Full adherence with all procedures was assumed.Main Outcome and Measures: Estimated LYG relative to no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies (burden), number of complications from screening (harms), and balance of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios). Efficient strategies were those estimated to require fewer additional colonoscopies per additional LYG relative to other strategies.Results: Estimated LYG from screening strategies ranged from 171 to 381 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden ranged from 624 to 6817 per 1000 individuals, and screening complications ranged from 5 to 22 per 1000 individuals. Among the 49 strategies that were efficient options with all 3 models, 41 specified screening beginning at age 45. No single age to end screening was predominant among the efficient strategies, although the additional LYG from continuing screening after age 75 were generally small. With the exception of a 5-year interval for computed tomography colonography, no screening interval predominated among the efficient strategies for each modality. Among the strategies highlighted in the 2016 USPSTF recommendation, lowering the age to begin screening from 50 to 45 years was estimated to result in 22 to 27 additional LYG, 161 to 784 additional colonoscopies, and 0.1 to 2 additional complications per 1000 persons (ranges are across screening strategies, based on mean estimates across models). Assuming full adherence, screening outcomes and efficient strategies were similar by sex and race and across 3 scenarios for population risk of colorectal cancer.Conclusions and Relevance: This microsimulation modeling analysis suggests that screening for colorectal cancer with stool tests, endoscopic tests, or computed tomography colonography starting at age 45 years provides an efficient balance of colonoscopy burden and life-years gained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]