Post-therapeutic surveillance is one important component of cancer care. However, there still is no evidence-based strategies to schedule patients’ follow-up examinations. Our approach is based on the modeling of the probability of the onset of relapse at an early asymptotic or preclinical stage and its transition to a clinical stage. For that we consider a multistate homogeneous Markov model, which includes the natural history of relapse. The model also handles separately the different types of possible relapses. The optimal schedule is provided by the calendar visit that maximizes a utility function. The methodology has been applied to laryngeal cancer. The different follow-up strategies revealed to be more efficient than those proposed by different scientific societies.
ZelenMFeinleibM. On the theory of screening for chronic diseases. Biometrila1969; 56: 601–614.
2.
DayNEWalterSD. Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: estimation procedures from mass screening programmes. Biometrics1984; 40: 1–1.
3.
StevensonC. Statistical models for cancer screening. Stat Methods Med Res1995; 4: 18–32.
4.
Van OormarssenGBoerRHabbemaJ. Modelling issues in cancer screening. Stat Methods Med Res1995; 4: 33–54.
5.
BoerRPlevritisSClarkeL. Diversity of model approaches for breast cancer screening: a review of model assumptions by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Groups. Stat Methods Med Res2004; 13: 525–538.
6.
DuffySSasieniPOlsenAet al.Modelling the likely effect of the increase of the upper age limit from 70 to 73 for breast screening in the UK National Programme. Stat Methods Med Res2010; 19: 547–555.
7.
KafadarKProrokPC. Computational methods in medical decision making: to screen or not to screen?Stat Med2005; 24: 569–581.
8.
CowenMEChartrandMWeitzelWF. A Markov model of the natural history of prostate cancer. J Clin Epidemiol1994; 47: 3–21.
9.
DuffySWDayNETabarLet al.Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age specific results. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr1997; 22: 93–97.
10.
ÖzekiciSPliskaSR. Optimal scheduling of inspections: a delayed Markov model with false positives and negatives. Oper Res1991; 39: 261–273.
11.
ChenHPrevostTDuffyS. Evaluation of screening for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: trial design using Marcov chain models. Br J Cancer1999; 79: 1894–1900.
12.
UhryZHédelinGColonnaMet al.Multi-state Markov models in cancer screening evaluation: a brief review and case study. Stat Methods Med Res2010; 19: 463–486.
13.
Somda SMA, Leconte E, Kramar A, et al. Determining the length of posttherapeutic follow-up for cancer patients using competing risks modeling. Med Decis Making 2014; 34: 168–179.
14.
LeeSJZelenM. Scheduling periodic examinations for the early detection of disease: application to breast cancer. J Am Stat Assoc1998; 93: 1271–1281.
15.
ShenYZelenM. Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. J Clin Oncol2001; 19: 3490–3499.
16.
ShenYParmigianiG. Optimization of breast cancer screening modalities2003, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University, Department of Biostatistics Working Papershttp://biostats.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper18 (accessed 20 February 2013).
17.
ShenYZelenM. Robust modeling in screening studies: estimation of sensitivity of preclinical sojourn time distribution. Biostatistics2005; 6: 604–614.
18.
LeeSYJeongSHKimJet al.Scheduling mammography screening for early detection of breast cancer in Korean women. J Med Screen2007; 14: 205–209.
19.
DraismaGvan RosmalenJ. A note on the catch-up time method for estimating lead or sojourn time in prostate cancer screening. Stat Med2013; 32: 3332–3341.
20.
FilleronTDalencFKramarA. Personalised cancer follow-up: risk stratification, need assessment or both?Br J Cancer2012; 106: 1579–1580.
HaasIHauserUGanzerU. The dilemma of follow-up in head and neck cancer patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol2001; 258: 177–183.
24.
AtamanOUBarettADavidsonSet al.Audit of effectiveness of routine follow-up clinics after radiotherapy for cancer: a report of the REACT Working Group of ESTRO. Radiother Oncol2004; 73: 237–249.
25.
FilleronTBarettAAtamanOUet al.Planning post-therapeutic oncologic surveillance visits based on individual risks. Med Decis Making2009; 29: 570–579.
26.
WingoPARiesLAGRosenbergHMet al.Cancer incidence and mortality, 1973–1995. Cancer1998; 82: 1197–1207.
27.
HofmannUSzedlakMRittgenWet al.Primary staging and follow-up in melanoma patients - monocenter evaluation of methods, costs and patients survival. Br J Cancer2002; 87: 151–157.
28.
FranckenABShawHMNeilAAet al.Detection of first relapse in cutaneous melanoma patients: implication for the formulation of evidence-based follow-up guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol2007; 14: 1924–1933.
29.
FranckenABShawHMThompsonJF. Detection of second primary cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol2008; 34: 587–592.
30.
WheelerTStenningSNegusSet al.Evidence to support a change in follow-up policy for patients with breast cancer: time to first relapse and hazard rate analysis. Clin Oncol1999; 11: 169–173.
PeronneMAMusolinoAMichiaraMet al.Early detection of recurrences in the follow-up of primary breast cancer in an asymptomatic or symptomatic phase. Tumori2004; 90: 276–279.
33.
ZolaPFusoLMazzolaSet al.Could follow-up different modalities play a role in asymptomatic cervical cancer relapses diagnosis? An italian multicenter retrospective analysis. Gynecol Oncol2007; 107: S150–S154.
34.
DonnellyJMackPDonaldsonLA. Follow-up of breast cancer: time for a new approach?Int J Clin Pract2001; 55: 431–433.
35.
TsaoHFeldmanMFullertonJEet al.Early detection of asymptomatic pulmonary melanoma metastases by routinechest radiographs is not associated with improved survival. Arch Dermatol2004; 140: 67–70.
36.
NelderJAMeadR. A simplex algorithm for function minimization. Comput J1964; 7: 148–154.
37.
RitoeSCKrabbePFMKaandersJHAMet al.Value of routine follow-up for patients cured of laryngeal carcinoma. Cancer2004; 101: 1382–1389.
38.
RitoeSCDe VegtFScheikeIMet al.Effect of routine follow-up after treatment for laryngeal cancer on life expectancy and mortality. Results of a Markov model analysis. Am Cancer Soc2007; 109: 239–247.
39.
SchwartzDLBarkerJJChanskyKet al.Postradiotherapy surveillance practice for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma - too much for too little?Head Neck2003; 25: 990–999.
40.
LeeSJZelenM. Modelling the early detection of breast cancer. Ann Oncol2003; 14: 1199–1202.
41.
PinskyPF. An early- and late-stage convolution model for disease natural history. Biometrics2004; 60: 191–198.
42.
DavidovOZelenM. Designing cancer prevention trials: a stochastic model approach. Stat Med2000; 19: 1983–1995.
43.
DraismaGBoerROttoSJet al.Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2003; 95: 868–878.
44.
FranckenABHoekstraHJ. Follow up of melanoma patients: the need for evidence-based protocols (editorial). Ann Surg Oncol2009; 16: 804–805.
45.
LeeSHuangZelenM. Early detection of disease and scheduling of screening examinations. Stat Methods Med Res2004; 13: 443–456.
46.
VeestraetenD. An alternative approach to modelling relapse in cancer with an application to adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Math Biosci2006; 199: 38–54.
