S D Walter1. 1. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. walter@mcmaster.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The case-control design can be used to evaluate the benefit of cancer screening programmes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper outlines the main methodological features of the case-control design in this context, and indicates some potential biases. It also reviews the existing case-control literature on mammographic screening. RESULTS: Case-control studies consistently indicate a reduction of approximately 50% in breast cancer mortality associated with mammography. This result indicates greater benefit than shown in randomised trials; however, one should recognise that trials indicate effectiveness whereas case-control studies indicate efficacy. The two types of evidence are broadly compatible when one allows for screening non-compliance and contamination in the randomised trials. CONCLUSIONS: The case-control evidence supports and is consistent with the findings of randomised trials of mammography. Effectiveness estimates from trials indicate the benefit of screening to the population as a whole, and are pertinent to the public policy debate as to the value of offering screening. In contrast, case-control studies indicate benefit to actual screening participants. As such, case-control estimates of efficacy are appropriate for individual decision-making by women about their use of mammography when it is potentially available to them.
BACKGROUND: The case-control design can be used to evaluate the benefit of cancer screening programmes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper outlines the main methodological features of the case-control design in this context, and indicates some potential biases. It also reviews the existing case-control literature on mammographic screening. RESULTS: Case-control studies consistently indicate a reduction of approximately 50% in breast cancer mortality associated with mammography. This result indicates greater benefit than shown in randomised trials; however, one should recognise that trials indicate effectiveness whereas case-control studies indicate efficacy. The two types of evidence are broadly compatible when one allows for screening non-compliance and contamination in the randomised trials. CONCLUSIONS: The case-control evidence supports and is consistent with the findings of randomised trials of mammography. Effectiveness estimates from trials indicate the benefit of screening to the population as a whole, and are pertinent to the public policy debate as to the value of offering screening. In contrast, case-control studies indicate benefit to actual screening participants. As such, case-control estimates of efficacy are appropriate for individual decision-making by women about their use of mammography when it is potentially available to them.
Authors: D Puliti; G Miccinesi; N Collina; V De Lisi; M Federico; S Ferretti; A C Finarelli; F Foca; L Mangone; C Naldoni; M Petrella; A Ponti; N Segnan; A Sigona; M Zarcone; M Zorzi; M Zappa; E Paci Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 7.640