Abstract
Frequency and duration of follow-up for patients with breast cancer is still under discussion. Current follow-up consists of annual mammography for the first five years after treatment and does not depend on the personal risk of developing a locoregional recurrence (LRR) or second primary tumor. Aim of this study is to gain insight in how to allocate resources for optimal and personal follow-up. We formulate a discrete-time Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) with a finite horizon in which we aim to maximize the total expected number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Transition probabilities were obtained from data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Twice a year the decision is made whether or not a mammography will be performed. Recurrent disease can be detected by both mammography or women themselves (self-detection). The optimal policies were determined for three risk categories based on differentiation of the primary tumor. Our results suggest a slightly more intensive follow-up for patients with a high risk and poorly differentiated tumor, and a less intensive schedule for the other risk groups.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
W.L. Lu, L. Jansen, W.J. Post, J. Bonnema, J.C. van de Velde, G.H. De Bock, Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 114, 403–412 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0023-4
M. Moossdorff, L.M. van Roozendaal, L.J.A. Strobbe, S. Aebi, D.A. Cameron, J.M. Dixon, A.E. Giuliano, B.G. Haffty, B.E. Hickey, C.A. Hudis, V.S. Klimberg, B. Koczwara, T. Kühn, M.E. Lippman, A. Lucci, M. Piccart, B.D. Smith, V.C.G. Tjan-Heijnen, C.J.H. van de Velde, K.J.V. Zee, J.B. Vermorken, G. Viale, A.C. Voogd, I.L. Wapnir, J.R. White, M.L. Smidt, Maastricht Delphi consensus on event definitions for classification of recurrence in breast cancer research. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 106 (12), 1–7 (2014). http://dx.doi.org//10.1093/jnci/dju288
IKNL, Dutch Breast Cancer Guideline (2016), available: https://www.oncoline.nl/ [Online]. Accessed 2 March 2016
S.M.E. Geurts, F. de Vegt, S. Siesling, K. Flobbe, K.K.H. Aben, M. van der Heiden-van der Loo, A.L.M. Verbeek, J.A.A.M. van Dijck, V.C.G. Tjan-Heijnen, Pattern of follow-up care and early relapse detection in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 136, 859–868 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2297-9
A. Witteveen, I.M.H. Vliegen, G.S. Sonke, J.M. Klaase, M.J. IJzerman, S. Siesling, Personalisation of breast cancer follow-up: a time-dependent prognostic nomogram for the estimation of annual risk of locoregional recurrence in early breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 152, 627–636 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3490-4
M. IJzerman, A. Manca, J. Keizer, S. Ramsey, Implementing comparative effectiveness research in personalized medicine applications in oncology: current and future perspectives. Comp. Eff. Res. 26 (5), 65–72 (2015). https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CER.S92212
R.D. Smallwood, E.J. Sondik, The optimal control of partially observable Markov processes over a finite horizon. Oper. Res. 21 (5), 1071–1088 (1973). http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.21.5.1071
L.N. Steimle, B.T. Denton, Markov decision processes for screening and treatment of chronic diseases, in Markov Decision Processes in Practice, ed. by R. Boucherie, N.M. van Dijk (Springer, New York, 2016)
T. Ayer, O. Alagoz, N.K. Stout, A POMDP approach to personalize mammography screening decisions. Oper. Res. 60 (5), 1019–1034 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1110.1019
M.U.S. Ayvaci, O. Alagoz, E.S. Burnside, The effect of budgetary restrictions on breast cancer diagnostic decisions. MSOM 14 (4), 600–617 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.1110.0371
J. Zhang, B.T. Denton, H. Balasubramanian, N.D. Shah, B.A. Inman, Optimization of PSA screening policies: a comparison of the patient and societal perspectives. Med. Decis. Making 32 (1), 337–349 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11416513
F.A. Sonnenberg, J.R. Back, Markov models in medical decision making, a practical guide. Med. Decis. Making 13 (4), 322–338 (1993). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9301300409
G.E. Monahan, A survey of partially observable Markov decision processes: theory, models and algorithms. Manag. Sci. 28 (1), 1–16 (1982). http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.1.1
W.S. Lovejoy, A survey of algorithmic methods for partially observed Markov decision processes. Ann. Oper. Res. 28 (1), 47–65 (1991). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02055574
J.N. Eagle, The optimal search for a moving target when the search path is constrained. Oper. Res. 32 (5), 1107–1115 (1984). http://www.jstor.org/stable/170656
CBS, Statline (2016), available: http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/ [Online]. Accessed 18 May 2016
Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Netherlands Cancer Registry (2016), available: https://www.cijfersoverkanker.nl/ [Online]
J.S. Mandelblatt, M.E. Wheat, M. Monane, R.D. Moshief, J.P. Hollenberg, J. Tang, Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions: a decision analysis model. Ann. Internal Med. 116 (9), 722–730 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-116-9-722
V. Velanovich, Immediate biopsy versus observation for abnormal findings on mammograms: an analysis of potential outcomes and costs. Am. J. Surg. 170 (4), 327–332 (1995). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80298-0
T.M. Kolb, J. Lichy, J.H. Newhouse, Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast us and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225, 165–175 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
WHO, The world health report: 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. World Health Organization (2002)
M. Fine, B. Rimer, P. Watts, Women’s responses to the mammography experience. J. Am. Board Fam. Pract. 6 (6), 546–555 (1993)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Notation
Appendix: Notation
General | This chapter | Description |
---|---|---|
S | S | State space |
s | s t | State at time t |
r | r t (s, a, o) | Reward at time t in state s with action a and observation o |
A | A′ t | Set of actions at time t |
a | a t | Action at time t |
P | P t (a, o) | Transition probability at time t given action a |
and observation o | ||
V t ∗(s) | V t ∗(π), V t ∗(b) | Optimal value function from time t onwards given |
information state π or belief state b |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Otten, J.W.M., Witteveen, A., Vliegen, I.M.H., Siesling, S., Timmer, J.B., IJzerman, M.J. (2017). Stratified Breast Cancer Follow-Up Using a Partially Observable MDP. In: Boucherie, R., van Dijk, N. (eds) Markov Decision Processes in Practice. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 248. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47766-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47766-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47764-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47766-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)