Time filter

Source Type

Oakton, VA, United States

Hadley J.,George Mason University | Yabroff K.R.,U.S. National Cancer Institute | Barrett M.J.,Management Information Services Inc. | Penson D.F.,Vanderbilt University | And 2 more authors.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Year: 2010

BackgroundUsing observational data to assess the relative effectiveness of alternative cancer treatments is limited by patient selection into treatment, which often biases interpretation of outcomes. We evaluated methods for addressing confounding in treatment and survival of patients with early-stage prostate cancer in observational data and compared findings with those from a benchmark randomized clinical trial.MethodsWe selected 14302 early-stage prostate cancer patients who were aged 66-74 years and had been treated with radical prostatectomy or conservative management from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2003. Eligibility criteria were similar to those from a clinical trial used to benchmark our analyses. Survival was measured through December 31, 2007, by use of Cox proportional hazards models. We compared results from the benchmark trial with results from models with observational data by use of traditional multivariable survival analysis, propensity score adjustment, and instrumental variable analysis.ResultsProstate cancer patients receiving conservative management were more likely to be older, nonwhite, and single and to have more advanced disease than patients receiving radical prostatectomy. In a multivariable survival analysis, conservative management was associated with greater risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27 to 2.00) and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.59) than radical prostatectomy. Propensity score adjustments resulted in similar patient characteristics across treatment groups, although survival results were similar to traditional multivariable survival analyses. Results for the same comparison from the instrumental variable approach, which theoretically equalizes both observed and unobserved patient characteristics across treatment groups, differed from the traditional multivariable and propensity score results but were consistent with findings from the subset of elderly patient with early-stage disease in the trial (ie, conservative management vs radical prostatectomy: for prostate cancer-specific mortality, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.08 to 6.73; for all-cause mortality, HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.46 to 2.59).ConclusionInstrumental variable analysis may be a useful technique in comparative effectiveness studies of cancer treatments if an acceptable instrument can be identified. © 2010 The Author. Source

Reedy J.,U.S. National Cancer Institute | Krebs-Smith S.M.,U.S. National Cancer Institute | Miller P.E.,Exponent, Inc. | Liese A.D.,University of South Carolina | And 3 more authors.
Journal of Nutrition | Year: 2014

Increased attention in dietary research and guidance has been focused on dietary patterns, rather than on single nutrients or food groups, because dietary components are consumed in combination and correlated with one another. However, the collective body of research on the topic has been hampered by the lack of consistency in methods used. We examined the relationships between 4 indices-the Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010), the Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010), the alternate Mediterranean Diet (aMED), and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)-and allcause, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer mortality in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study (n = 492,823). Data from a 124-item food-frequency questionnaire were used to calculate scores; adjusted HRs and 95% CIs were estimated. We documented 86,419 deaths, including 23,502 CVD- and 29,415 cancer-specific deaths, during 15 y of follow-up. Higher index scores were associated with a 12-28% decreased risk of all-cause, CVD, and cancer mortality. Specifically, comparing the highest with the lowest quintile scores, adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality for men were as follows: HEI-2010 HR: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.80), AHEI-2010 HR: 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.78), aMED HR: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.79), and DASH HR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.85); for women, these were HEI-2010 HR: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.80), AHEI-2010 HR: 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.79), aMED HR: 0.76 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.79), and DASH HR: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.81). Similarly, high adherence on each index was protective for CVD and cancer mortality examined separately. These findings indicate that multiple scores reflect core tenets of a healthy diet that may lower the risk of mortality outcomes, including federal guidance as operationalized in the HEI-2010, Harvard's Healthy Eating Plate as captured in the AHEI-2010, a Mediterranean diet as adapted in an Americanized aMED, and the DASH Eating Plan as included in the DASH score. © 2014 American Society for Nutrition. Source

Hirsch R.L.,Management Information Services Inc.
Journal of Fusion Energy | Year: 2016

A fundamental revamping of magnetic plasma fusion research is needed, because the current focus of world fusion research—the ITER-tokamak concept—is virtually certain to be a commercial failure. Towards that end, a number of technological considerations are described, believed important to successful fusion research. Beyond critical attention to plasma physics challenges, there must be a much sharper focus on electric utility acceptance criteria, which strongly reflect the public interest. While the ITER-tokamak experience has provided important understanding of a variety of technology issues, it is expensive and time-consuming. Engineers with commercial-world experience must become involved in future fusion research and must have a major influence on program decision-making and evaluation. Fusion engineers will have to be imaginative while being rooted in an understanding of fission reactor development, nuclear regulation, and electric utility realities, the proper consideration of which will impact fusion program success. Properly developed, fusion power holds great promise as an attractive electric power source for the long-term future. © 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York Source

Mariotto A.B.,U.S. National Cancer Institute | Robin Yabroff K.,U.S. National Cancer Institute | Shao Y.,Management Information Services Inc. | Feuer E.J.,U.S. National Cancer Institute | Brown M.L.,U.S. National Cancer Institute
Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Year: 2011

Background Current estimates of the costs of cancer care in the United States are based on data from 2003 and earlier. However, incidence, survival, and practice patterns have been changing for the majority of cancers. Method sCancer prevalence was estimated and projected by phase of care (initial year following diagnosis, continuing, and last year of life) and tumor site for 13 cancers in men and 16 cancers in women through 2020. Cancer prevalence was calculated from cancer incidence and survival models estimated from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data. Annualized net costs were estimated from recent SEER-Medicare linkage data, which included claims through 2006 among beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with a cancer diagnosis. Control subjects without cancer were identified from a 5% random sample of all Medicare beneficiaries residing in the SEER areas to adjust for expenditures not related to cancer. All cost estimates were adjusted to 2010 dollars. Different scenarios for assumptions about future trends in incidence, survival, and cost were assessed with sensitivity analysis. Results Assuming constant incidence, survival, and cost, we projected 13.8 and 18.1 million cancer survivors in 2010 and 2020, respectively, with associated costs of cancer care of 124.57 and 157.77 billion 2010 US dollars. This 27% increase in medical costs reflects US population changes only. The largest increases were in the continuing phase of care for prostate cancer (42%) and female breast cancer (32%). Projections of current trends in incidence (declining) and survival (increasing) had small effects on 2020 estimates. However, if costs of care increase annually by 2% in the initial and last year of life phases of care, the total cost in 2020 is projected to be $173 billion, which represents a 39% increase from 2010. Conclusion sThe national cost of cancer care is substantial and expected to increase because of population changes alone. Our findings have implications for policy makers in planning and allocation of resources. © 2010 The Author. Source

Waters E.A.,Health Science University | McNeel T.S.,Management Information Services Inc. | Stevens W.M.,U.S. National Cancer Institute | Freedman A.N.,U.S. National Cancer Institute
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Year: 2012

Two selective estrogen receptor modulators, tamoxifen and raloxifene, have been shown in randomized clinical trials to reduce the risk of developing primary invasive breast cancer in high-risk women. In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used these studies as a basis for approving tamoxifen for primary breast chemoprevention in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women at high risk. In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for primary breast cancer chemoprevention for postmenopausal women. Data from the year 2010 National Health Interview Survey were analyzed to estimate the prevalence of tamoxifen and raloxifene use for chemoprevention of primary breast cancers among U.S. women. Prevalence of use of chemopreventive agents for primary tumors was 20,598 (95 % CI, 518-114,864) for U.S. women aged 35-79 for tamoxifen. Prevalence was 96,890 (95 % CI, 41,277-192,391) for U.S. women aged 50-79 for raloxifene. Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for prevention of primary breast cancers continues to be low. In 2010, women reporting medication use for breast cancer chemoprevention were primarily using the more recently FDA approved drug raloxifene. Multiple possible explanations for the low use exist, including lack of awareness and/or concern about side effects among primary care physicians and patients. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC(outside the USA) 2012. Source

Discover hidden collaborations