Background. The UK Age trial compared annual mammography screening of women ages 40 to 49 years with no screening and found a statistically significant breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up but not at the 17-year follow-up. The objective of this study was to compare the observed Age trial results with the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer model predicted results. Methods. Five established CISNET breast cancer models used data on population demographics, screening attendance, and mammography performance from the Age trial together with extant natural history parameters to project breast cancer incidence and mortality in the control and intervention arm of the trial. Results. The models closely reproduced the effect of annual screening from ages 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence. Restricted to breast cancer deaths originating from cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase, the models estimated an average 15% (range across models, 13% to 17%) breast cancer mortality reduction at the 10-year follow-up compared with 25% (95% CI, 3% to 42%) observed in the trial. At the 17-year follow-up, the models predicted 13% (range, 10% to 17%) reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with the non-significant 12% (95% CI, -4% to 26%) in the trial. Conclusions. The models underestimated the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality at the 10-year follow-up. Overall, the models captured the observed long-term effect of screening from age 40 to 49 years on breast cancer incidence and mortality in the UK Age trial, suggesting that the model structures, input parameters, and assumptions about breast cancer natural history are reasonable for estimating the impact of screening on mortality in this age group.
EddyDMHollingworthWCaroJJet al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:733–43.
2.
PlevritisSMunozDKurianAet al. Estimating breast cancer survival by molecular subtype in the absence of screening and adjuvant treatment. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):32–43.
3.
MandelblattJSStoutNKSchechterCBet al. Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. breast cancer screening strategies. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:215–25.
4.
BerryDACroninKAPlevritisSKet al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005Oct27;353:1784–92.
5.
SiuAL, On behalf of the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:279–96.
6.
MandelblattJSNearAMMigliorettiDLMunozDSpragueBLTrentham-DietzAet al. Common model inputs used in CISNET collaborative breast cancer modeling. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):9–23.
7.
van RavesteynNTMigliorettiDLStoutNKet al. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:609–17.
8.
IndependentU. K. Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.
9.
American College of O-G. Practice bulletin no. 122: Breast cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:372–82.
10.
OeffingerKCFonthamETEtzioniRet al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 Guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314:1599–614.
11.
SpragueBLGangnonREBurtVet al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106.
12.
AndersCKFanCParkerJSet al. Breast carcinomas arising at a young age: unique biology or a surrogate for aggressive intrinsic subtypes?J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:e18–20.
13.
BoydNFGuoHMartinLJet al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.
14.
MossSMCuckleHEvansAet al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368:2053–60.
15.
MossSMWaleCSmithREvansACuckleHDuffySW. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1123–32.
16.
MossSThomasIEvansAThomasBJohnsL, Trial Management G. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:949–54.
17.
KingstonNThomasIJohnsLMossS, Trial Management G. Assessing the amount of unscheduled screening (“contamination”) in the control arm of the UK “Age” Trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:1132–6.
18.
JohnsLEMossSM, Trial Management G. Randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (‘Age’ trial): patterns of screening attendance. J Med Screen. 2010;17:37–43.
19.
JohnsLEMossSM, Age Trial Management G. False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (“Age” trial). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2758–64.
20.
MossS. A trial to study the effect on breast cancer mortality of annual mammographic screening in women starting at age 40. Trial Steering Group. J Med Screen. 1999;6:144–8.
21.
van den BroekJJvan RavesteynNTHeijnsdijkEAde KoningHJ. Simulating the impact of risk-based screening and treatment on breast cancer outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):32–43.
22.
MunozDXuCPlevritisS. A molecular subtype-specific stochastic simulation model of US breast cancer incidence and mortality trends from 1975 to 2010. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):89–98.
23.
LeeSJLiXHuangH. The Dana-Farber CISNET model for breast cancer screening strategies: An update. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):44–53.
24.
HuangXLiYSongJBerryDA. A Bayesian simulation model for breast cancer screening, incidence, treatment, and mortality. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):78–88.
25.
AlagozOErgunMACevikMet al. The University of Wisconsin breast cancer epidemiology simulation model: An update. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):99–111.
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G, PetoRDaviesCet al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012;379:432–44.
28.
MandelblattJSCroninKABaileySet al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Int Med. 2009;151:738–47.
29.
van den BroekJJvan RavesteynNTCevikMet al. Comparing CISNET breast cancer models using the maximum clinical incidence reduction methodology. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1S):112–125.
