Literature DB >> 12518005

All-cause mortality among breast cancer patients in a screening trial: support for breast cancer mortality as an end point.

L Tabar1, S W Duffy, M-F Yen, J Warwick, B Vitak, H-H Chen, R A Smith.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has recently been suggested that all-cause mortality is a more appropriate end point than disease specific mortality in cancer screening trials, and that disease specific mortality is biased in favour of screening. This suggestion is based partly on supposed inconsistencies between all-cause mortality results and disease specific results in cancer screening trials, and alleged increases in deaths from causes other than breast cancer among breast cancer cases diagnosed among women invited to screening.
METHODS: We used data from the Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer, in which 77 080 women were randomised to an invitation to screening and 55 985 to no invitation. We estimated relative risks (RRs) (invited v control) of death from breast cancer, death from other causes within the breast cancer cases, and death from all causes within the breast cancer cases. RRs were adjusted for age and took account of the longer follow up of breast cancer cases in the invited group due to lead time.
RESULTS: There was a significant 31% reduction in breast cancer mortality in the invited group (RR 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.80; p<0.001). There was no significant increase in deaths from other causes among breast cancer cases in the invited group (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96-1.31; p=0.14). A significant 19% reduction in deaths from all causes was observed among breast cancer cases in the group invited to screening (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90; p<0.001). A more conservative estimation gave a significant 13% reduction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97; p=0.01). These findings are consistent with the magnitude of the reduction in breast cancer mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Invitation to screening was associated with a reduction in deaths from all causes among breast cancer cases, consistent with high participation rates in screening. There is no significant evidence of bias in cause of death classification in the Two-County Trial, and as breast cancer mortality is the targeted clinical outcome in breast cancer screening, it is the appropriate end point in a breast cancer screening trial. All-cause mortality is a poor and inefficient surrogate for breast cancer mortality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12518005     DOI: 10.1136/jms.9.4.159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  16 in total

1.  Diagnostic performance of a Near-Infrared Breast Imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone.

Authors:  F Collettini; J C Martin; F Diekmann; E Fallenberg; F Engelken; S Ponder; T J Kroencke; B Hamm; A Poellinger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Systematic review of the breast cancer screening trials is error-ridden.

Authors:  László Tabar; Nicholas Day; Robert Smith; Tony H H Chen; Amy M F Yen; Stephen Duffy
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Temporal trends in geographic disparities in small-area breast cancer incidence and mortality, 1988 to 2005.

Authors:  Mario Schootman; Min Lian; Anjali D Deshpande; Elizabeth A Baker; Sandi L Pruitt; Rebecca Aft; Donna B Jeffe
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 5.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 6.  Subclinical hypothyroidism and related biochemical entities in pregnancy: implications and management.

Authors:  D S A McLeod; H D McIntyre
Journal:  Obstet Med       Date:  2010-12-03

7.  How Did CNBSS Influence Guidelines for So Long and What Can That Teach Us?

Authors:  Shushiela Appavoo
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 3.109

8.  Temporal trends in area socioeconomic disparities in breast-cancer incidence and mortality, 1988-2005.

Authors:  Mario Schootman; Min Lian; Anjali D Deshpande; Elizabeth A Baker; Sandi L Pruitt; Rebecca Aft; Donna B Jeffe
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 9.  American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines.

Authors:  Richard Wender; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Ermilo Barrera; Graham A Colditz; Timothy R Church; David S Ettinger; Ruth Etzioni; Christopher R Flowers; G Scott Gazelle; Douglas K Kelsey; Samuel J LaMonte; James S Michaelson; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Daniel C Sullivan; William Travis; Louise Walter; Andrew M D Wolf; Otis W Brawley; Robert A Smith
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 10.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-06-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.