Literature DB >> 15316055

Bias in intervention studies that enroll patients from high-risk clinics.

Sholom Wacholder1.   

Abstract

It is important to evaluate the effects of proposed interventions to reduce the risk of disease among carriers of a highly penetrant mutation, such as the mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for breast and ovarian cancers or in APC and MLH1 or MSH2 for colon cancer. However, some studies that evaluate the effects of interventions designed to reduce risk in mutation carriers may be susceptible to a serious selection bias when they are based in clinics that care for persons at high risk for the disease. A study design in which a large fraction of the case patients were diagnosed before being seen at the clinic and all control subjects are persons previously seen at the clinic can create a false impression of intervention efficacy if, as is likely, mutation carriers seen at the clinic were more likely to receive the intervention than mutation carriers in the general population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15316055     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh229

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  7 in total

1.  RE: Breast Cancer Risk After Salpingo-Oophorectomy in Healthy BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: Revisiting the Evidence for Risk Reduction.

Authors:  Xinglei Chai; Susan Domchek; Noah Kauff; Timothy Rebbeck; Jinbo Chen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Occult ovarian cancers identified at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Judy E Garber; Claudine Isaacs; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; D Gareth Evans; Wendy Rubinstein; Christian F Singer; Stephen Rubin; Henry T Lynch; Mary B Daly; Jeffrey Weitzel; Patricia A Ganz; Gabriella Pichert; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Nadine Tung; Joanne L Blum; Fergus Couch; Timothy R Rebbeck
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-02-24       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Risk of de novo cancer after premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy.

Authors:  Nan Huo; Carin Y Smith; Liliana Gazzuola Rocca; Walter A Rocca; Michelle M Mielke
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Family history of pancreatic cancer in a high-risk cancer clinic: implications for risk assessment.

Authors:  Michael J Hall; James J Dignam; Olufunmilayo I Olopade
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-06-25       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Bilateral Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers.

Authors:  Joanne Kotsopoulos; Tomasz Huzarski; Jacek Gronwald; Christian F Singer; Pal Moller; Henry T Lynch; Susan Armel; Beth Karlan; William D Foulkes; Susan L Neuhausen; Leigha Senter; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Andrea Eisen; Kelly Metcalfe; Charis Eng; Tuya Pal; Gareth Evans; Ping Sun; Jan Lubinski; Steven A Narod
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

Authors:  George U Eleje; Ahizechukwu C Eke; Ifeanyichukwu U Ezebialu; Joseph I Ikechebelu; Emmanuel O Ugwu; Onyinye O Okonkwo
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-08-24

7.  RRM1 *151A>T, RRM1 -756T>C, and RRM1 -585T>Gis associated with increased susceptibility of lung cancer in Chinese patients.

Authors:  Xiao-Ling Xu; Ji Zheng; Wei-Min Mao; Zhi-Qiang Ling
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 4.452

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.