Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Monte Carlo simulation approach to the characterization of uncertainties in cancer staging and radiation treatment decisions

  • Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Radiation treatment (RT) for cancer is a critical medical procedure that occurs in a complex environment that is subject to uncertainties and errors. We employed a simulation (a variant of Monte Carlo) model that followed a cohort of hypothetical breast cancer patients to estimate the probability of incorrect staging and treatment decisions. As inputs, we used a combination of literature information and expert judgement. Input variables were defined as probability distributions within the model. Uncertainties were propagated via simulation. Sensitivity and value-of-information analyses were then conducted to quantify the effect of variable uncertainty on the model outputs. We found a small but non-trivial probability that patients would be incorrectly staged and thus be subjected to inappropriate treatment. Some routinely used tests for staging and metastasis detection have very limited informational value. This work has implications for the methods used in cancer staging and subsequent risk assessment of treatment errors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alderson PO et al (1983). Computed tomography, ultrasound, and scintigraphy of the liver in patients with colon or breast carcinoma: a prospective comparison. Radiology 149: 225–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneton JN et al (1997). Etiologic diagnosis of hepatic lesions in cancer patients. Value of ultrasound and liver function tests. Clin Imaging 21: 366–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciatto S et al (1985). Staging breast cancer–screening for occult metastases. Tumori 71(4): 339–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • D'Alessandro R et al (2001). Serum tissue polypeptide specific antigen (TPS): a complementary tumor marker to CA 15-3 in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 68: 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Brauw LM et al (1991a). Hepatic metastases: comparative study of diagnostic ultrasound, CT, nuclear scintigraphy and laboratory tests. Neth J Surg 43: 92–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Brauw LM et al (1991b). Prospective comparative study of ultrasound, CT-scan, scintigraphy and laboratory tests to detect hepatic metastases. J Nucl Biol Med 35: 131–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • del Rocio Estrada-Sanchez G, Mireles Enriquez M and Valverde Castaneda N (2003). Reliability of CA 15-3 in the follow up of female patients with breast carcinoma and bone metastases. Rev Invest Clin 55: 412–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donegan WL and Spratt JS (2002). Cancer of the Breast. (USA). Saunders–Elsevier Science: St Louis, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowie J (1996). ‘Evidence-based', ‘cost-effective' and ‘preference-driven' medicine: decision analysis based medical decision making is the pre-requisite. J Health Serv Res Policy 1: 104–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhard K et al (2004). Comparison of whole-body MRI with automatic moving table technique and bone scintigraphy for screening for bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14: 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B et al (2002a). Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16): 1233–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B et al (2002b). Tamoxifen, radiation therapy or both for prevention of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy in women with invasive breast cancers of one centimeter or less. J Clin Oncol 20: 4141–4149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest AP et al (1996). Randomised controlled trial of conservation therapy for breast cancer: 6-year analysis of the Scottish trial. Scottish Cancer Trials Breast Group. Lancet 348(9029): 708–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallowitsch HJ et al (2003). F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol 38: 250–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadagni F et al (2001). A re-evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a serum marker for breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Clin Cancer Res 7: 2357–2362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helton JC and Davis FJ (2002). Illustration of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Risk Anal 22: 591–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou MF et al (1999). Evaluation of serum CA27.29, CA15-3 and CEA in patients with breast cancer. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 15: 520–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunink M et al (2001). Deciding when to test. In: Hunink M. Decision Making in Health and Medicine, Integrating Evidence and Values. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: UK. pp 157–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmen C et al (1984). Measurement of biliary alkaline phosphatase by mini-column chromatography and by electrophoresis and its application to the detection of liver metastases in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 37: 212–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim NK et al (1977). Value of alkaline phosphatase, 5′-nucleotidase, gamma-glutamyltransferase, and glutamate dehydrogenase activity measurements (single and combined) in serum in diagnosis of metastasis to the liver. Clin Chem 23: 2034–2038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokko R, Hakama M and Holli K (2003). Role of chest X-ray in diagnosis of the first breast cancer relapse: a randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 81: 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronz JD, Westra WH and Epstein JI (1999). Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 86(11): 2426–2435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacic M et al (1999). Bone marrow immunoscintigraphy for the detection of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 20: 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauro S et al (1999). Comparison of CEA, MCA, CA 15-3 and CA 27-29 in follow-up and monitoring therapeutic response in breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res 19: 3511–3515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee RC and Wright WE (1994). Development of human exposure factor distributions using maximum-entropy inference. J Expos Anal Environ Epi 4: 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarrity TJ, Samuels T and Wilson FA (1987). An analysis of imaging studies and liver function tests to detect hepatic neoplasia. Digest Dis Sci 32(10): 1113–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG and Henrion M (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ohta M et al (2001). Whole body PET for the evaluation of bony metastases in patients with breast cancer: comparison with 99Tcm-MDP bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun 22: 875–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani G (2002). Measuring uncertainty in complex decision analysis models. Stat Methods Med Res 11: 513–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior JO et al (2003). The value of bone marrow scintigraphy using 99mTc monoclonal antigranulocyte antibodies in complement to bone scintigraphy in detecting bone metastases from primary breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 24(1): 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravaioli A et al (2002). Staging of breast cancer: new recommended standard procedure. Breast Cancer Res Treat 72: 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reale MG et al (1995). Skeletal alkaline phosphatase as a serum marker of bone metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast cancer. Int J Biol Markers 10: 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzke C et al (1998). Alkaline phosphatase isoenzymes in detection and follow up of breast cancer metastases. Anticancer Res 18: 1243–1249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell S and Norvig P (1995). Uncertainty. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall Inc.: Upper Saddle River NJ, pp 415–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattevoet WH, Corstens FH, Beex LA and Rosenbusch GJ (1986). Reliability of sonography in diagnosing liver metastases in breast and bronchial cancer. A retrospective comparison of physical examination, laboratory tests and liver scintigraphy. Ultraschall Med 7: 293–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanu A et al (2003). The role of (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin pinhole-SPECT in breast cancer non palpable axillary lymph node metastases detection. Q J Nucl Med 47: 116–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staradub VL et al (2002). Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surgical Oncol 9(10): 982–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempero MA, Williams CA and Anderson JC (1986). The value of hepatic ultrasound and biochemical liver tests in screening for liver metastases. J Clin Oncol 4: 1074–1078.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres M et al (1995). CA 549 and SP2 in postoperative breast cancer patients. Comparison with CA 15.3, CEA and TPA. Int J Biol Markers 10: 94–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vizcarra E et al (1996). Value of CA 15.3 in breast cancer and comparison with CEA and TPA: a study of specificity in disease-free follow-up patients and sensitivity in patients at diagnosis of the first metastasis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37: 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waalkes TP et al (1982). Biological markers as an aid in the clinical management of patients with liver metastases. J Surg Oncol 20: 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein MC et al (1980). Clinical Decision Analysis. W.B. Saunders Company: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojtacki J et al (2001). Elevation of serum Ca 15-3 antigen: an early indicator of distant metastasis from breast cancer. Retrospective analysis of 733 cases. Przegl Lek 58: 498–503.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    E Ekaette & R C Lee

  2. Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    R C Lee & P Dunscombe

  3. Calgary Health Technology Implementation Unit, Calgary, AB, Canada

    R C Lee

  4. Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Canada

    R C Lee

  5. Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, Canada

    K-L Kelly & P Dunscombe

Authors
  1. E Ekaette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R C Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K-L Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P Dunscombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R C Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ekaette, E., Lee, R., Kelly, KL. et al. A Monte Carlo simulation approach to the characterization of uncertainties in cancer staging and radiation treatment decisions. J Oper Res Soc 58, 177–185 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602269

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602269

Keywords

Search

Navigation