1990 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Quantitative Analysis of Tumor Growth Dynamics Using Screening Data
| Project/Area Number |
01570328
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Research Field |
公衆衛生学
|
|---|
| Research Institution | University of Occupational and Environmental Health |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
YAMAGUCHI Naohito University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Dept. Environmental Epidemiology, Associate professor, 医学部, 助教授 (80119031)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
IKEDA Masato University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Dept. Clinical Epidemiology, 医学部, 助教授 (90038761)
YOSHIMURA Takesumi University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Dept. Clinical Epidemiology, 医学部, 教授 (20037435)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1989 – 1990
|
| Keywords | Stomach cancer / Screening / Tumor growth / Mathematical model / Epidemiology |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
We developed a new approach using mathematical modeling technique to estimate the screening sensitivity and the growth rate of cancer based on screening data. Using this method, the sensitivity of screening test with indirect X-ray examination was estimated in relation to the tumor diameter. This method has an advantage over the conventional stochastic progression model, since it can formulate the growth of a malignant tumor as a continuous process instead of unrealistic stepwise progression.
We also analyzed the incidence rate of stomach cancer in different histologic subtypes using a mathematical model of multistage cancer induction and exponential tumor growth. We found that the growth rate as well as the process of cancer induction differ by histologic subtypes. In particular, the induction and growth showed marked differences between well and poorly differentiated subgroups.
We estimated the screening sensitivity for well and poorly differentiated stomach cancer, separately and that for the whole stomach cancer, using our method. We found no difference in the screening sensitivity between these two groups.
|
Research Products
(4 results)
