Structure, Function, and Applications of the Georgetown–Einstein (GE) Breast Cancer Simulation Model

Background. The Georgetown University-Albert Einstein College of Medicine breast cancer simulation model (Model GE) has evolved over time in structure and function to reflect advances in knowledge about breast cancer, improvements in early detection and treatment technology, and progress in computing resources. This article describes the model and provides examples of model applications. Methods. The model is a discrete events microsimulation of single-life histories of women from multiple birth cohorts. Events are simulated in the absence of screening and treatment, and interventions are then applied to assess their impact on population breast cancer trends. The model accommodates differences in natural history associated with estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) biomarkers, as well as conventional breast cancer risk factors. The approach for simulating breast cancer natural history is phenomenological, relying on dates, stage, and age of clinical and screen detection for a tumor molecular subtype without explicitly modeling tumor growth. The inputs to the model are regularly updated to reflect current practice. Numerous technical modifications, including the use of object-oriented programming (C++), and more efficient algorithms, along with hardware advances, have increased program efficiency permitting simulations of large samples. Results. The model results consistently match key temporal trends in US breast cancer incidence and mortality. Conclusion. The model has been used in collaboration with other CISNET models to assess cancer control policies and will be applied to evaluate clinical trial design, recurrence risk, and polygenic risk-based screening.

[1]  Uwe Siebert,et al.  Modeling Good Research Practices—Overview , 2012, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[2]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Race-Specific Impact of Natural History, Mammography Screening, and Adjuvant Treatment on Breast Cancer Mortality Rates in the United States , 2010, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[3]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 Years , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  W. Lawrence,et al.  Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status. , 2005, Journal of general internal medicine.

[5]  S D Walter,et al.  Estimation of the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data. , 1983, American journal of epidemiology.

[6]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Transition from film to digital mammography: impact for breast cancer screening through the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program. , 2015, American journal of preventive medicine.

[7]  S. Plevritis,et al.  Common Model Inputs Used in CISNET Collaborative Breast Cancer Modeling , 2018, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  S. Timmermans,et al.  The promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine. , 2005, Health affairs.

[9]  T. Wilt,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2011 .

[10]  D. Berry,et al.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer , 2005 .

[11]  M. Stoto,et al.  Using Simulation Modeling to Inform Strategies to Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality in Black Women in the District of Columbia. , 2012, Epidemiology Research International.

[12]  Ruth Etzioni,et al.  Personalizing age of cancer screening cessation based on comorbid conditions: model estimates of harms and benefits. , 2014, Annals of internal medicine.

[13]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2009, Annals of internal medicine.

[14]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies , 2016, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  Marvin Zelen,et al.  Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms , 2009 .

[16]  Takuji Nishimura,et al.  Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator , 1998, TOMC.

[17]  A. Jemal,et al.  Which Strategies Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality Most? , 2013, Cancer.

[18]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Supplemental Ultrasonography Screening for Women With Dense Breasts , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  T. Holford,et al.  The Contribution of Mammography Screening to Breast Cancer Incidence Trends in the United States: An Updated Age–Period–Cohort Model , 2015, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[20]  Peter Muennig,et al.  Benefits and costs of interventions to improve breast cancer outcomes in African American women. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  E. Feuer,et al.  Additional common inputs for analyzing impact of adjuvant therapy and mammography on U.S. mortality. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[22]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Collaborative modeling of the impact of obesity on race-specific breast cancer incidence and mortality , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[23]  E. Feuer,et al.  Changing patterns in breast cancer incidence trends. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[24]  E. Feuer,et al.  Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States , 2005, Cancer Causes & Control.

[25]  Eric J. Feuer,et al.  How much of the recent rise in breast cancer incidence can be explained by increases in mammography utilization? A dynamic population model approach. , 1992, American journal of epidemiology.