Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

Assessing racial, ethnic, and nativity disparities in US cancer mortality using a new integrated platform.

BACKGROUND: Foreign-born populations in the United States have markedly increased, yet cancer trends remain unexplored. Survey-based Population-Adjusted Rate Calculator (SPARC) is a new tool for evaluating nativity differences in cancer mortality. METHODS: Using SPARC, we calculated 3-year (2016-2018) age-adjusted mortality rates and rate ratios for common cancers by sex, age group, race and ethnicity, and nativity. Trends by nativity were examined for the first time for 2006-2018. Traditional cancer statistics draw populations from decennial censuses. However, nativity-stratified populations are from the American Community Surveys, thus involve sampling errors. To rectify this, SPARC employed bias-corrected estimators. Death counts came from the National Vital Statistics System. RESULTS: Age-adjusted mortality rates were higher among US-born populations across nearly all cancer types, with the largest US-born, foreign-born difference observed in lung cancer among Black women (rate ratio = 3.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.37 to 4.00). The well-documented White-Black differences in breast cancer mortality existed mainly among US-born women. For all cancers combined, descending trends were more accelerated for US-born compared with foreign-born individuals in all race and ethnicity groups with changes ranging from -2.6% per year in US-born Black men to stable (statistically nonsignificant) among foreign-born Black women. Pancreas and liver cancers were exceptions with increasing, stable, or decreasing trends depending on nativity and race and ethnicity. Notably, foreign-born Black men and foreign-born Hispanic men did not show a favorable decline in colorectal cancer mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although all groups show beneficial cancer mortality trends, those with higher rates in 2006 have experienced sharper declines. Persistent disparities between US-born and foreign-born individuals, especially among Black people, necessitate further investigation.

Estimated US Cancer Deaths Prevented With Increased Use of Lung, Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancer Screening.

Importance: Increased use of recommended screening could help achieve the Cancer Moonshot goal of reducing US cancer deaths. Objective: To estimate the number of cancer deaths that could be prevented with a 10-percentage point increase in the use of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical model study is an extension of previous studies conducted for the USPSTF from 2018 to 2023. This study simulated contemporary cohorts of US adults eligible for lung, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening. Exposures: Annual low-dose computed lung tomography among eligible adults aged 50 to 80 years; colonoscopy every 10 years among adults aged 45 to 75 years; biennial mammography among female adults aged 40 to 74 years; and triennial cervical cytology screening among female adults aged 21 to 29 years, followed by human papillomavirus testing every 5 years from ages 30 to 65 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated number of cancer deaths prevented with a 10-percentage point increase in screening use, assuming screening commences at the USPSTF-recommended starting age and continues throughout the lifetime. Outcomes were presented 2 ways: (1) per 100 000 and (2) among US adults in 2021; and they were expressed among the target population at the age of screening initiation. For lung cancer, estimates were among those who will also meet the smoking eligibility criteria during their lifetime. Harms from increased uptake were also reported. Results: A 10-percentage point increase in screening use at the age that USPSTF recommended screening commences was estimated to prevent 226 lung cancer deaths (range across models within the cancer site, 133-332 deaths), 283 (range, 263-313) colorectal cancer deaths, 82 (range, 61-106) breast cancer deaths, and 81 (1 model; no range available) cervical cancer deaths over the lifetimes of 100 000 persons eligible for screening. These rates corresponded with an estimated 1010 (range, 590-1480) lung cancer deaths prevented, 11 070 (range, 10 280-12 250) colorectal cancer deaths prevented, 1790 (range, 1330-2310) breast cancer deaths prevented, and 1710 (no range available) cervical cancer deaths prevented over the lifetimes of eligible US residents at the recommended age to initiate screening in 2021. Increased uptake was also estimated to generate harms, including 100 000 (range, 45 000-159 000) false-positive lung scans, 6000 (range, 6000-7000) colonoscopy complications, 300 000 (range, 295 000-302 000) false-positive mammograms, and 348 000 (no range available) colposcopies over the lifetime. Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytical model study, a 10-percentage point increase in uptake of USPSTF-recommended lung, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening at the recommended starting age was estimated to yield important reductions in cancer deaths. Achieving these reductions is predicated on ensuring equitable access to screening.

Key Points for Clinicians About the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Importance: In the setting of a new cancer diagnosis, the focus is usually on the cancer as the main threat to survival, but people may have other conditions that pose an equal or greater threat to their life than their cancer: a competing risk of death. This is especially true for patients who have cancer of the oral cavity, because prolonged exposure to alcohol and tobacco are risk factors for cancer in this location but also can result in medical conditions with the potential to shorten life expectancy, competing as a cause of death that may intervene in conjunction with or before the cancer. Observations: A calculator designed for public use has been released that allows patients age 20 to 86 years who have a newly diagnosed oral cancer to obtain estimates of their health status-adjusted age, life expectancy in the absence of the cancer, and probability of surviving, dying of the cancer, or dying of other causes within 1 to 10 years after diagnosis. The models in the calculator showed that patients with oral cavity cancer had a higher than average risk of death from other causes than the matched US population, and this risk increases by stage. Conclusions and Relevance: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program Oral Cancer Survival Calculator supports a holistic approach to the life of the patient, and the risk of death of other causes is treated equally to consideration of the probability of death of the cancer. This tool may be usefully paired with the other available prognostic calculators for oral cancer and is an example of the possibilities now available with registry linkages to partially overlapping or independent data sets and statistical techniques that allow the use of 2 time scales in 1 analysis.

A New Personalized Oral Cancer Survival Calculator to Estimate Risk of Death From Both Oral Cancer and Other Causes.

Importance: Standard cancer prognosis models typically do not include much specificity in characterizing competing illnesses or general health status when providing prognosis estimates, limiting their utility for individuals, who must consider their cancer in the context of their overall health. This is especially true for patients with oral cancer, who frequently have competing illnesses. Objective: To describe a statistical framework and accompanying new publicly available calculator that provides personalized estimates of the probability of a patient surviving or dying from cancer or other causes, using oral cancer as the first data set. Design, Setting, and Participants: The models used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registry (2000 to 2011), SEER-Medicare linked files, and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) (1986 to 2009). Statistical methods developed to calculate natural life expectancy in the absence of the cancer, cancer-specific survival, and other-cause survival were applied to oral cancer data and internally validated with 10-fold cross-validation. Eligible participants were aged between 20 and 94 years with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Exposures: Histologically confirmed oral cancer, general health status, smoking, and selected serious comorbid conditions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Probabilities of surviving or dying from the cancer or from other causes, and life expectancy in the absence of the cancer. Results: A total of 22 392 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (13 544 male [60.5%]; 1476 Asian and Pacific Islander [6.7%]; 1792 Black [8.0%], 1589 Hispanic [7.2%], 17 300 White [78.1%]) and 402 626 NHIS interviewees were included in this calculator designed for public use for patients ages 20 to 86 years with newly diagnosed oral cancer to obtain estimates of health status-adjusted age, life expectancy in the absence of the cancer, and the probability of surviving, dying from the cancer, or dying from other causes within 1 to 10 years after diagnosis. The models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes than their matched US population, and that this risk increases by stage. Conclusions and relevance: The models developed for the calculator demonstrate that survival estimates that exclude the effects of coexisting conditions can lead to underestimates or overestimates of survival. This new calculator approach will be broadly applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person's health in other cancers; as registries develop more linkages, available covariates will become broader, strengthening future tools.

Data-driven choice of a model selection method in joinpoint regression.

Selecting the number of change points in segmented line regression is an important problem in trend analysis, and there have been various approaches proposed in the literature. We first study the empirical properties of several model selection procedures and propose a new method based on two Schwarz type criteria, a classical Bayes Information Criterion (BIC) and the one with a harsher penalty than BIC (BIC3). The proposed rule is designed to use the former when effect sizes are small and the latter when the effect sizes are large and employs the partial R2 to determine the weight between BIC and BIC3. The proposed method is computationally much more efficient than the permutation test procedure that has been the default method of Joinpoint software developed for cancer trend analysis, and its satisfactory performance is observed in our simulation study. Simulations indicate that the proposed method performs well in keeping the probability of correct selection at least as large as that of BIC3, whose performance is comparable to that of the permutation test procedure, and improves BIC3 when it performs worse than BIC. The proposed method is applied to the U.S. prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates.

Updating the Know Your Chances Website to Include Smoking Status as a Risk Factor for Mortality Estimates.

Importance: To make wise decisions about the health risks they face, people need information about the magnitude of the threats as well as the context, such as how risks compare. Such information is often presented by age, sex, and race but rarely accounts for smoking status, a major risk factor for many causes of death. Objective: To update the National Cancer Institute's Know Your Chances website to present mortality estimates for a broad set of causes of death and all causes combined by smoking status in addition to age, sex, and race. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, mortality estimates using life table methods were calculated with the National Cancer Institute's DevCan software package, combining data from the US National Vital Statistics System, National Health Interview Survey-Linked Mortality Files, National Institutes of Health-AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), Cancer Prevention Study II, Nurses' Health and Health Professions follow-up studies, and Women's Health Initiative. Data were collected from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2018, and analyzed from August 27, 2019, to February 28, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age-conditional probabilities of dying due to various causes and all causes combined, accounting for competing causes of death, for people aged 20 to 75 years over the next 5, 10, or 20 years by sex, race, and smoking status. Results: A total of 954 029 individuals aged 55 years or older (55.8% women) were included in the analysis. Regardless of sex or race, for never-smokers, coronary heart disease represented the highest 10-year chance of death after about 50 years of age, which is higher than for any malignant neoplasm. Among current smokers, the 10-year chance of death due to lung cancer was almost as high as for coronary heart disease in each group. For Black and White female current smokers aged from the mid-40s onward, the 10-year probability of death due to lung cancer was substantially higher than for breast cancer. After 40 years of age, the observed effect of never vs current smoking on the 10-year chance of death due to all causes approximated adding 10 years of age. After 40 years of age when conditioning on smoking status, mortality risk for Black individuals was approximately that of White individuals 5 years older. Conclusions and Relevance: Using life table methods and accounting for competing risks, the revised Know Your Chances website presents age-conditional mortality estimates according to smoking status for a broad set of causes in the context of other conditions and all-cause mortality. The findings of this cohort study suggest that failing to account for smoking status results in inaccurate mortality estimates for many causes-namely, they are too low for smokers and too high for nonsmokers.

Interpreting cancer incidence trends: challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The considerable deficit in cancer diagnoses in 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic disruptions in health care can pose challenges in the estimation and interpretation of long-term cancer trends. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) (2000-2020) data, we demonstrate that inclusion of the 2020 incidence rates in joinpoint models to estimate trends can result in a poorer fit to the data and less accurate or less precise trend estimates, providing challenges in the interpretation of the estimates as a cancer control measure. To measure the decline in 2020 relative to 2019 cancer incidence rates, we used the percent change of rates in 2020 compared with 2019. Overall, SEER cancer incidence rates dropped approximately 10% in 2020, but for thyroid cancer the decrease was as large as 18% after adjusting for reporting delay. The 2020 SEER incidence data are available in all SEER released products, except for joinpoint estimates of trends and lifetime risk of developing cancer.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds. DESIGN: Comparative modeling analysis. DATA SOURCES: National Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator. TARGET POPULATION: 1960 U.S. birth cohort. TIME HORIZON: 45 years. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health care sector. INTERVENTION: Annual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES: Risk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions. LIMITATION: Risk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors. CONCLUSION: Risk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Developing Geographic Areas for Cancer Reporting Using Automated Zone Design.

The reporting and analysis of population-based cancer statistics in the United States has traditionally been done for counties. However, counties are not ideal for analysis of cancer rates, due to wide variation in population size, with larger counties having considerable sociodemographic variation within their borders and sparsely populated counties having less reliable estimates of cancer rates that are often suppressed due to confidentiality concerns. There is a need and an opportunity to utilize zone design procedures in the context of cancer surveillance to generate coherent, statistically stable geographic units that are more optimal for cancer reporting and analysis than counties. To achieve this goal, we sought to create areas within each US state that are: 1) similar in population size and large enough to minimize rate suppression; 2) sociodemographically homogeneous; 3) compact; and 4) custom crafted to represent areas that are meaningful to cancer registries and stakeholders. The resulting geographic units reveal the heterogeneity of rates that are hidden when reported at the county-level while substantially reducing the need to suppress data. We believe this effort will facilitate more meaningful comparative analysis of cancer rates for small geographic areas and will advance the understanding of cancer burden in the United States.

A History of Health Economics and Healthcare Delivery Research at the National Cancer Institute.

With increased attention to the financing and structure of healthcare, dramatic increases in the cost of diagnosing and treating cancer, and corresponding disparities in access, the study of healthcare economics and delivery has become increasingly important. The Healthcare Delivery Research Program (HDRP) in the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was formed in 2015 to provide a hub for cancer-related healthcare delivery and economics research. However, the roots of this program trace back much farther, at least to the formation of the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention and Control in 1983. The creation of a division focused on understanding and explaining trends in cancer morbidity and mortality was instrumental in setting the direction of cancer-related healthcare delivery and health economics research over the subsequent decades. In this commentary, we provide a brief history of health economics and healthcare delivery research at NCI, describing the organizational structure and highlighting key initiatives developed by the division, and also briefly discuss future directions. HDRP and its predecessors have supported the growth and evolution of these fields through the funding of grants and contracts; the development of data, tools, and other research resources; and thought leadership including stimulation of research on previously understudied topics. As the availability of new data, methods, and computing capacity to evaluate cancer-related healthcare delivery and economics expand, HDRP aims to continue to support this growth and evolution.

Twenty years since Joinpoint 1.0: Two major enhancements, their justification, and impact.

Since its release of Version 1.0 in 1998, Joinpoint software developed for cancer trend analysis by a team at the US National Cancer Institute has received a considerable attention in the trend analysis community and it became one of most widely used software for trend analysis. The paper published in Statistics in Medicine in 2000 (a previous study) describes the permutation test procedure to select the number of joinpoints, and Joinpoint Version 1.0 implemented the permutation procedure as the default model selection method and employed parametric methods for the asymptotic inference of the model parameters. Since then, various updates and extensions have been made in Joinpoint software. In this paper, we review basic features of Joinpoint, summarize important updates of Joinpoint software since its first release in 1998, and provide more information on two major enhancements. More specifically, these enhancements overcome prior limitations in both the accuracy and computational efficiency of previously used methods. The enhancements include: (i) data driven model selection methods which are generally more accurate under a broad range of data settings and more computationally efficient than the permutation test and (ii) the use of the empirical quantile method for construction of confidence intervals for the slope parameters and the location of the joinpoints, which generally provides more accurate coverage than the prior parametric methods used. We show the impact of these changes in cancer trend analysis published by the US National Cancer Institute.

Estimating life expectancy adjusted by self-rated health status in the United States: national health interview survey linked to the mortality.

BACKGROUND: Life expectancy is increasingly incorporated in evidence-based screening and treatment guidelines to facilitate patient-centered clinical decision-making. However, life expectancy estimates from standard life tables do not account for health status, an important prognostic factor for premature death. This study aims to address this research gap and develop life tables incorporating the health status of adults in the United States. METHODS: Data from the National Health Interview Survey (1986-2004) linked to mortality follow-up through to 2006 (age ≥ 40, n = 729,531) were used to develop life tables. The impact of self-rated health (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor) on survival was quantified in 5-year age groups, incorporating complex survey design and weights. Life expectancies were estimated by extrapolating the modeled survival probabilities. RESULTS: Life expectancies incorporating health status differed substantially from standard US life tables and by health status. Poor self-rated health more significantly affected the survival of younger compared to older individuals, resulting in substantial decreases in life expectancy. At age 40 years, hazards of dying for white men who reported poor vs. excellent health was 8.5 (95% CI: 7.0,10.3) times greater, resulting in a 23-year difference in life expectancy (poor vs. excellent: 22 vs. 45), while at age 80 years, the hazards ratio was 2.4 (95% CI: 2.1, 2.8) and life expectancy difference was 5 years (5 vs. 10). Relative to the US general population, life expectancies of adults (age < 65) with poor health were approximately 5-15 years shorter. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable shortage in life expectancy due to poor self-rated health existed. The life table developed can be helpful by including a patient perspective on their health and be used in conjunction with other predictive models in clinical decision making, particularly for younger adults in poor health, for whom life tables including comorbid conditions are limited.

Impact of Joint Lung Cancer Screening and Cessation Interventions Under the New Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

INTRODUCTION: In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening recommendations expanding its eligibility. As more smokers become eligible, cessation interventions at the point of screening could enhance the benefits. Here, we evaluate the effects of joint screening and cessation interventions under the new recommendations. METHODS: A validated lung cancer natural history model was used to estimate lifetime number of low-dose computed tomography screens, percentage ever screened, lung cancer deaths, lung cancer deaths averted, and life-years gained for the 1960 U.S. birth cohort aged 45 to 90 years (4.5 million individuals). Screening occurred according to the USPSTF 2013 and 2021 recommendations with varying uptake (0%, 30%, 100%), with or without a cessation intervention at the point of screening with varying effectiveness (15%, 100%). RESULTS: Screening 30% of the eligible population according to the 2021 criteria with no cessation intervention (USPSTF 2021, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) was estimated to result in 6845 lung cancer deaths averted and 103,725 life-years gained. These represent 28% and 34% increases, respectively, relative to screening according to the 2013 guidelines (USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention). Adding a cessation intervention at the time of the first screen with 15% effectiveness (USPSTF 2021, 30% uptake, with cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness) was estimated to result in 2422 additional lung cancer deaths averted (9267 total, ∼73% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 322,785 life-years gained (∼318% increase). Screening 100% of the eligible according to the 2021 guidelines with no cessation intervention (USPSTF 2021, 100% uptake, without cessation intervention) was estimated to result in 23,444 lung cancer deaths averted (∼337% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 354,330 life-years gained (∼359% increase). Adding a cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness (USPSTF 2021, 100% uptake, with cessation intervention with 15% effectiveness) would result in 31,998 lung cancer deaths averted (∼497% increase versus USPSTF 2013, 30% uptake, without cessation intervention) and 1,086,840 life-years gained (∼1309% increase). CONCLUSIONS: Joint screening and cessation interventions would result in considerable lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained. Adding a one-time cessation intervention of modest effectiveness (15%) results in comparable life-years gained as increasing screening uptake from 30% to 100% because while cessation decreases mortality from many causes, screening only reduces lung cancer mortality. This simulation indicates that incorporating cessation programs into screening practice should be a priority as it can maximize overall benefits.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.

IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its 2021 recommendation on lung cancer screening, which lowered the starting age for screening from 55 to 50 years and the minimum cumulative smoking exposure from 30 to 20 pack-years relative to its 2013 recommendation. Although costs are expected to increase because of the expanded screening eligibility criteria, it is unknown whether the new guidelines for lung cancer screening are cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening compared with the 2013 recommendation and to explore the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years and an ending age for screening of 80 years but varied the starting ages for screening (50 or 55 years) and the number of years since smoking cessation (≤15, ≤20, or ≤25). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis using 4 independently developed microsimulation models that shared common inputs to assess the population-level health benefits and costs of the 2021 recommended screening strategy and 6 alternative screening strategies compared with the 2013 recommended screening strategy. The models simulated a 1960 US birth cohort. Simulated individuals entered the study at age 45 years and were followed up until death or age 90 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2050. EXPOSURES: Low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening programs with a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the 2021 vs 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations as well as 6 alternative screening strategies vs the 2013 USPSTF screening strategy. Strategies with a mean ICER lower than $100 000 per QALY were deemed cost-effective. RESULTS: The 2021 USPSTF recommendation was estimated to be cost-effective compared with the 2013 recommendation, with a mean ICER of $72 564 (range across 4 models, $59 493-$85 837) per QALY gained. The 2021 recommendation was not cost-effective compared with 6 alternative strategies that used the 20 pack-year criterion. Strategies associated with the most cost-effectiveness included those that expanded screening eligibility to include a greater number of former smokers who had not smoked for a longer duration (ie, ≤20 years and ≤25 years since smoking cessation vs ≤15 years since smoking cessation). In particular, the strategy that screened former smokers who quit within the past 25 years and began screening at age 55 years was associated with screening coverage closest to that of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation yet yielded greater cost-effectiveness, with a mean ICER of $66 533 (range across 4 models, $55 693-$80 539). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This economic evaluation found that the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening was cost-effective; however, alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years but included individuals who quit smoking within the past 25 years may be more cost-effective and warrant further evaluation.

Characterizing Trends in Cancer Patients' Survival Using the JPSurv Software.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in cancer survival are usually assessed by comparing survival in grouped years of diagnosis. To enhance analyses of survival trends, we present the joinpoint survival model webtool (JPSurv) that analyzes survival data by single year of diagnosis and estimates changes in survival trends and year-over-year trend measures. METHODS: We apply JPSurv to relative survival data for individuals diagnosed with female breast cancer, melanoma cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) between 1975 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. We estimate the number and location of joinpoints and the trend measures and provide interpretation. RESULTS: In general, relative survival has substantially improved at least since the mid-1990s for all cancer sites. The largest improvements in 5-year relative survival were observed for distant-stage melanoma after 2009, which increased by almost 3 survival percentage points for each subsequent year of diagnosis, followed by CML in 1995-2010, and NHL in 1995-2003. The modeling also showed that for patients diagnosed with CML after 1995 (compared with before), there was a greater decrease in the probability of dying of the disease in the 4th and 5th years after diagnosis compared with the initial years since diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest increases in trends for distant melanoma, NHL, and CML coincided with the introduction of novel treatments, demonstrating the value of JPSurv for estimating and interpreting cancer survival trends. IMPACT: The JPSurv webtool provides a suite of estimates for analyzing trends in cancer survival that complement traditional descriptive survival analyses.

Updated Methodology for Projecting U.S.- and State-Level Cancer Counts for the Current Calendar Year: Part II: Evaluation of Incidence and Mortality Projection Methods.

BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the NCI collaborate every 5 to 8 years to update the methods for estimating the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the current year for the U.S. and individual states. Herein, we compare our current projection methodology with the next generation of statistical models. METHODS: A validation study was conducted comparing current projection methods (vector autoregression for incidence; Joinpoint regression for mortality) with the Bayes state-space method and novel Joinpoint algorithms. Incidence data from 1996-2010 were projected to 2014 using two inputs: modeled data and observed data with modeled where observed were missing. For mortality, observed data from 1995 to 2009, 1996 to 2010, 1997 to 2011, and 1998 to 2012, each projected 3 years forward to 2012 to 2015. Projection methods were evaluated using the average absolute relative deviation (AARD) between observed counts (2014 for incidence, 2012-2015 for mortality) and estimates for 47 cancer sites nationally and 21 sites by state. RESULTS: A novel Joinpoint model provided a good fit for both incidence and mortality, particularly for the most common cancers in the U.S. Notably, the AARD for cancers with cases in 2014 exceeding 49,000 for this model was 3.4%, nearly half that of the current method (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: A data-driven Joinpoint algorithm had versatile performance at the national and state levels and will replace the ACS's current methods. IMPACT: This methodology provides estimates of cancer data that are not available for the current year, thus continuing to fill an important gap for advocacy, research, and public health planning.

Updated Methodology for Projecting U.S.- and State-Level Cancer Counts for the Current Calendar Year: Part I: Spatio-temporal Modeling for Cancer Incidence.

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. IMPACT: In addition to predicting the unavailable state-level historical incidence counts for cancer surveillance, the updated algorithms have broad applicability for disease mapping and other activities of public health planning, advocacy, and research.