almost 20% of breast cancer diagnoses, and neariy 30% of screen-detected breast cancers, are DCIS. Since limitations in our understanding ofthe natural history of DCIS prevent identification ofwhich DCIS tumors will progress into invasive cancers, the management of DCIS requires treatment similar to therapies for Invasive breast cancer even though relative survival after DCIS approaches 100%. Researchers are actively searching for methods to optimize the screening process by identifying prognostic markers to identify DCIS with malignant potential.
We aim to (1) compare current screening processes with a comprehensive, personalized breast cancer screening process that considers DCIS prognostic markers such as those under investigation in Projects 1 and 2. We further aim to (2) perform subgroup analyses to determine how the use of new DCIS prognostic markers affects the benefits and harms of screening for women with varying rates of DCIS (e.g., by age and race), and to (3) evaluate the impact of increasing digital mammography and MRI use on DCIS incidence, overtreatment, and the comparative effectiveness of new DCIS prognostic markers. To address these aims, we will use the University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Simulation (UWBCS) model to examine comparative effecfiveness at the population level. The UWBCS model, developed as part of the Cancer Inten/ention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET), Is a discrete-event, stochastic simulation model designed to replicate breast cancer incidence and mortality rates in the U.S. population. Data from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System and other sources, including the Wisconsin In Situ Cohort, will provide essential new inputs to the UWBCS model for this project. Multiple measures of the benefits and harms associated with breast cancer screening will be evaluated. Simulation modeling is ideally suited for comparative effectiveness since numerous screening process variables can be considered simultaneously, data sources can be combined to address gaps, and long term outcomes can be evaluated in a timely manner. Our comparative effectiveness analysis will provide a framework by which new prognostic markers can be evaluated for their potential impacts on the benefits and harms of screening, with a focus on those breast cancer diagnoses with excellent prognosis that are primarily only found through screening. This project will address a critical need to assess whether novel new personalized treatment decision-making approaches tied to emerging screening tests can maximize quality of life by avoiding overtreatment in all populations.

National Institute of Health (NIH)
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Specialized Center--Cooperative Agreements (U54)
Project #
Application #
Study Section
Special Emphasis Panel (ZCA1-SRLB-R)
Project Start
Project End
Budget Start
Budget End
Support Year
Fiscal Year
Total Cost
Indirect Cost
University of Vermont & St Agric College
United States
Zip Code
Onega, Tracy; Weaver, Donald L; Frederick, Paul D et al. (2017) The diagnostic challenge of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Cancer 80:39-47
Engmann, Natalie J; Golmakani, Marzieh K; Miglioretti, Diana L et al. (2017) Population-Attributable Risk Proportion of Clinical Risk Factors for Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol 3:1228-1236
Samples, Laura S; Rendi, Mara H; Frederick, Paul D et al. (2017) Surgical implications and variability in the use of the flat epithelial atypia diagnosis on breast biopsy specimens. Breast 34:34-43
Onega, Tracy; Weiss, Julie E; Goodrich, Martha E et al. (2017) Relationship between preoperative breast MRI and surgical treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 116:1008-1015
Knerr, Sarah; Wernli, Karen J; Leppig, Kathleen et al. (2017) A web-based personalized risk communication and decision-making tool for women with dense breasts: Design and methods of a randomized controlled trial within an integrated health care system. Contemp Clin Trials 56:25-33
Haas, Jennifer S; Barlow, William E; Schapira, Marilyn M et al. (2017) Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients. J Gen Intern Med 32:449-457
Jackson, Sara L; Frederick, Paul D; Pepe, Margaret S et al. (2017) Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time? Ann Surg Oncol 24:1234-1241
Shiyanbola, Oyewale O; Arao, Robert F; Miglioretti, Diana L et al. (2017) Emerging Trends in Family History of Breast Cancer and Associated Risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 26:1753-1760
Lehman, Constance D; Arao, Robert F; Sprague, Brian L et al. (2017) National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 283:49-58
Leopold, Robin B; Thomas, Alexander W; Concannon, Kyle F et al. (2017) Breast cancer screening in patients with cancers other than breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 163:343-348

Showing the most recent 10 out of 74 publications