The program theme is to identify effective breast cancer screening strategies for women with diverse levels of breast cancer risk to maximize screening benefits while minimizing potential harms. Program aims follow the premise that breast cancer screening will be most effective when: guidelines are based on accurate risk estimates that are tied to the effectiveness and harms of screening tests;women and physicians are informed about screening test performance based on risk level;risk-based screening practices are equitable;and high-quality comparative effectiveness research results are disseminated into community practice. Program goals will be met through three complementary research projects and three shared resource cores. Project 1, Risk Assessment in Community Practice: Developing Better Models, will improve prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes among women of varying ages and race/ethnicity and evaluate whether predicted risk can be used to optimize screening outcomes. Project 2, Comparative Effectiveness of Imaging Strategies for Breast Cancer Screening in Community Practice, will characterize the performance of advanced imaging technologies and screening strategies according to age, race/ethnicity, breast density, and overall breast cancer risk. Project 3, Community-based Utilization of Breast Imaging Technologies, will assess risk-based screening in diverse populations and identify disparities in access and use of new technologies. The Administrative Core will support logistical requirements and facilitate communication and data sharing. The Biostatistics and Data Management Core will coordinate data collection, management, and analysis and will develop statistical methods. The Comparative Effectiveness Core will use simulation modeling to estimate long-term implications of different screening practices on population health. The program represents an integrated effort to improve screening with the overall aim of averting deaths from breast cancer while minimizing harms.
New breast cancer screening technologies should improve early detection while minimizing health care resource use and harms associated with false-positive results and unnecessary tests. Our study will provide information on the performance of traditional and advanced imaging technologies in women at various ages, depending on their risk and individual characteristics.
| Sprague, Brian L; Vacek, Pamela M; Herschorn, Sally D et al. (2018) Time-varying risks of second events following a DCIS diagnosis in the population-based Vermont DCIS cohort. Breast Cancer Res Treat : |
| Henderson, Louise M; Hubbard, Rebecca A; Zhu, Weiwei et al. (2018) Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Use by Breast Density and Family History of Breast Cancer. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 27:987-993 |
| Plevritis, Sylvia K; Munoz, Diego; Kurian, Allison W et al. (2018) Association of Screening and Treatment With Breast Cancer Mortality by Molecular Subtype in US Women, 2000-2012. JAMA 319:154-164 |
| Trentham-Dietz, Amy; Ergun, Mehmet Ali; Alagoz, Oguzhan et al. (2018) Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 168:229-239 |
| Lee, Janie M; Abraham, Linn; Lam, Diana L et al. (2018) Cumulative Risk Distribution for Interval Invasive Second Breast Cancers After Negative Surveillance Mammography. J Clin Oncol 36:2070-2077 |
| van den Broek, Jeroen J; van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T; Mandelblatt, Jeanne S et al. (2018) Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Models Using the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction Methodology. Med Decis Making 38:112S-125S |
| Puvanesarajah, Samantha; Nyante, Sarah J; Kuzmiak, Cherie M et al. (2018) PAM50 and Risk of Recurrence Scores for Interval Breast Cancers. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 11:327-336 |
| Mandelblatt, Jeanne S; Near, Aimee M; Miglioretti, Diana L et al. (2018) Common Model Inputs Used in CISNET Collaborative Breast Cancer Modeling. Med Decis Making 38:9S-23S |
| Dabbous, Firas; Dolecek, Therese A; Friedewald, Sarah M et al. (2018) Performance characteristics of digital vs film screen mammography in community practice. Breast J 24:369-372 |
| Alagoz, Oguzhan; Ergun, Mehmet Ali; Cevik, Mucahit et al. (2018) The University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model: An Update. Med Decis Making 38:99S-111S |
Showing the most recent 10 out of 190 publications
