[ad_1]





That is the answer Caswell-Jin et al. (2024) aim to answer. The authors used 4 cancer mortality models within CISNET for this study:

  • Model D (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute). Used to define a set of disease states and implemented analytic formulations to estimate the association of interventions on transitions between these states, as well as on breast cancer incidence and mortality.
  • Model M (MD Anderson Cancer Center). Relied on a a bayesian approach, which asseded the probability distributions for unknown parameters, including treatment benefits, and fitting to observed breast cancer mortality
  • model S (Stanford University). A microsimulation that modelled natural history of disease based on tumor size and stage progression mapped to detection; treatments benefits were applied to baseline survival curves based on stage, age, and estrogen receptor (ER)/ERBB2 (formerly HER2) status at detection.
  • model W (University of Wisconsin–Harvard). This model used a tumor growth framework and was calibrated incidence and mortality based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) registry. This model also incorporated a cure fraction.

Categories of breast cancer by ER/ERBB2 status (ER+/ERBB2−, ER+/ERBB2+, ER/ERBB2+, and ER/ERBB2−) were modelled separately.

Using this approach, the authors found that:

The breast cancer mortality rate in the US (age adjusted) was 48/100 000 women in 1975 and 27/100 000 women in 2019. In 2019, the combination of screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment was associated with a 58% reduction (model range, 55%-61%) in breast cancer mortality. Of this reduction, 29% (model range, 19%-33%) was associated with treatment of metastatic breast cancer, 47% (model range, 35%-60%) with treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and 25% (model range, 21%-33%) with mammography screening. Based on simulations, the greatest change in survival after metastatic recurrence occurred between 2000 and 2019, from 1.9 years (model range, 1.0-2.7 years) to 3.2 years (model range, 2.0-4.9 years).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2813878

You can read the full paper here.



[ad_2]

Source link

Leave a Reply

Explore More

More generous unemployment insurance improves infant health outcomes – Healthcare Economist

[ad_1] An NBER paper by Dettling and Kearney (2023) finds that the unemployment rate impacts both fertility rates and birth outcomes. Using data on birth outcomes from the National Center

The Optimism of Digital Health – The Health Care Blog

[ad_1] By JONATHON FEIT Journalists like being salty.  Like many venture investors, we who are no longer “green” have finely tuned BS meters that like to rip off the sheen

Jobs report shows healthcare hiring increase in August

[ad_1] Ambulatory care providers added 21,900 jobs in August, including 15,200 at physicians’ offices and 4,600 at outpatient centers. Hospitals added 14,700 jobs, a promising sign as the sector continues