模拟多种癌症早期检测测试的影响:疾病模型的自然史综述。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-03 DOI:10.1177/0272989X251351639
Olena Mandrik, Sophie Whyte, Natalia Kunst, Annabel Rayner, Melissa Harden, Sofia Dias, Katherine Payne, Stephen Palmer, Marta O Soares
{"title":"模拟多种癌症早期检测测试的影响:疾病模型的自然史综述。","authors":"Olena Mandrik, Sophie Whyte, Natalia Kunst, Annabel Rayner, Melissa Harden, Sofia Dias, Katherine Payne, Stephen Palmer, Marta O Soares","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251351639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionThe potential for multicancer early detection (MCED) tests to detect cancer at earlier stages is currently being evaluated in screening clinical trials. Once trial evidence becomes available, modeling will be necessary to predict the effects on final outcomes (benefits and harms), account for heterogeneity in determining clinical and cost-effectiveness, and explore alternative screening program specifications. The natural history of disease (NHD) component will use statistical, mathematical, or calibration methods. This work aims to identify, review, and critically appraise the existing literature for alternative modeling approaches proposed for MCED that include an NHD component.MethodsModeling approaches for MCED screening that include an NHD component were identified from the literature, reviewed, and critically appraised. Purposively selected (non-MCED) cancer-screening models were also reviewed. The appraisal focused on the scope, data sources, evaluation approaches, and the structure and parameterization of the models.ResultsFive different MCED models incorporating an NHD component were identified and reviewed, alongside 4 additional (non-MCED) models. The critical appraisal highlighted several features of this literature. In the absence of trial evidence, MCED effects are based on predictions derived from test accuracy. These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions with unknown impacts, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality impacts from predicted stage shifts. None of the MCED models fully characterized uncertainty in the NHD or examined uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption.ConclusionThere is currently no modeling approach for MCEDs that can integrate clinical study evidence. In support of policy, it is important that efforts are made to develop models that make the best use of data from the large and costly clinical studies being designed and implemented across the globe.HighlightsIn the absence of trial evidence, published estimates of the effects of multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are based on predictions derived from test accuracy.These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality effects from predicted stage shifts. The effects of such simplifying assumptions are mostly unknown.None of the existing MCED models fully characterize uncertainty in the natural history of disease; none examine uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption.Currently, there is no modeling approach that can integrate clinical study evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"1013-1024"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12511643/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models.\",\"authors\":\"Olena Mandrik, Sophie Whyte, Natalia Kunst, Annabel Rayner, Melissa Harden, Sofia Dias, Katherine Payne, Stephen Palmer, Marta O Soares\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X251351639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>IntroductionThe potential for multicancer early detection (MCED) tests to detect cancer at earlier stages is currently being evaluated in screening clinical trials. Once trial evidence becomes available, modeling will be necessary to predict the effects on final outcomes (benefits and harms), account for heterogeneity in determining clinical and cost-effectiveness, and explore alternative screening program specifications. The natural history of disease (NHD) component will use statistical, mathematical, or calibration methods. This work aims to identify, review, and critically appraise the existing literature for alternative modeling approaches proposed for MCED that include an NHD component.MethodsModeling approaches for MCED screening that include an NHD component were identified from the literature, reviewed, and critically appraised. Purposively selected (non-MCED) cancer-screening models were also reviewed. The appraisal focused on the scope, data sources, evaluation approaches, and the structure and parameterization of the models.ResultsFive different MCED models incorporating an NHD component were identified and reviewed, alongside 4 additional (non-MCED) models. The critical appraisal highlighted several features of this literature. In the absence of trial evidence, MCED effects are based on predictions derived from test accuracy. These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions with unknown impacts, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality impacts from predicted stage shifts. None of the MCED models fully characterized uncertainty in the NHD or examined uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption.ConclusionThere is currently no modeling approach for MCEDs that can integrate clinical study evidence. In support of policy, it is important that efforts are made to develop models that make the best use of data from the large and costly clinical studies being designed and implemented across the globe.HighlightsIn the absence of trial evidence, published estimates of the effects of multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are based on predictions derived from test accuracy.These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality effects from predicted stage shifts. The effects of such simplifying assumptions are mostly unknown.None of the existing MCED models fully characterize uncertainty in the natural history of disease; none examine uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption.Currently, there is no modeling approach that can integrate clinical study evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1013-1024\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12511643/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251351639\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251351639","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多癌早期检测(MCED)检测在早期阶段检测癌症的潜力目前正在筛选临床试验中进行评估。一旦获得试验证据,就有必要建立模型来预测对最终结果的影响(益处和危害),解释确定临床和成本效益的异质性,并探索替代筛选程序规范。疾病自然史(NHD)部分将使用统计、数学或校准方法。这项工作旨在识别、回顾和批判性评估现有文献中提出的MCED替代建模方法,其中包括NHD组件。方法从文献中确定包括NHD成分的MCED筛选建模方法,进行回顾和批判性评价。我们也回顾了有目的选择的(非mced)癌症筛查模型。评估的重点是模型的范围、数据源、评估方法、结构和参数化。结果鉴定并回顾了包含NHD成分的5种不同的MCED模型,以及另外4种(非MCED)模型。批判性的评价突出了这篇文献的几个特点。在缺乏试验证据的情况下,MCED效应是基于测试准确性得出的预测。这些预测依赖于具有未知影响的简化假设,例如用于根据预测的阶段转移估计死亡率影响的阶段转移假设。没有一个MCED模型完全描述了NHD的不确定性或检查了阶段转移假设的不确定性。结论目前还没有能够整合临床研究证据的mced建模方法。为了支持政策,重要的是努力开发模型,以充分利用全球正在设计和实施的大型和昂贵的临床研究的数据。在缺乏试验证据的情况下,已发表的对多癌早期检测(MCED)检测效果的估计是基于检测准确性得出的预测。这些预测依赖于简化的假设,例如用于估计预测阶段转移对死亡率影响的阶段转移假设。这种简化假设的影响大多是未知的。现有的MCED模型都没有充分表征疾病自然史中的不确定性;没有人研究阶段转移假设中的不确定性。目前,还没有能够整合临床研究证据的建模方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models.

IntroductionThe potential for multicancer early detection (MCED) tests to detect cancer at earlier stages is currently being evaluated in screening clinical trials. Once trial evidence becomes available, modeling will be necessary to predict the effects on final outcomes (benefits and harms), account for heterogeneity in determining clinical and cost-effectiveness, and explore alternative screening program specifications. The natural history of disease (NHD) component will use statistical, mathematical, or calibration methods. This work aims to identify, review, and critically appraise the existing literature for alternative modeling approaches proposed for MCED that include an NHD component.MethodsModeling approaches for MCED screening that include an NHD component were identified from the literature, reviewed, and critically appraised. Purposively selected (non-MCED) cancer-screening models were also reviewed. The appraisal focused on the scope, data sources, evaluation approaches, and the structure and parameterization of the models.ResultsFive different MCED models incorporating an NHD component were identified and reviewed, alongside 4 additional (non-MCED) models. The critical appraisal highlighted several features of this literature. In the absence of trial evidence, MCED effects are based on predictions derived from test accuracy. These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions with unknown impacts, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality impacts from predicted stage shifts. None of the MCED models fully characterized uncertainty in the NHD or examined uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption.ConclusionThere is currently no modeling approach for MCEDs that can integrate clinical study evidence. In support of policy, it is important that efforts are made to develop models that make the best use of data from the large and costly clinical studies being designed and implemented across the globe.HighlightsIn the absence of trial evidence, published estimates of the effects of multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are based on predictions derived from test accuracy.These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality effects from predicted stage shifts. The effects of such simplifying assumptions are mostly unknown.None of the existing MCED models fully characterize uncertainty in the natural history of disease; none examine uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption.Currently, there is no modeling approach that can integrate clinical study evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信