BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies of prostate cancer (PCA) which are based on case control comparisons may be effected by verification bias. Verification bias exists when the experimental group has verified PCA, while the control group is presumed to be cancer free, but this is not histologically verified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of the literature and our recent experience with case-control studies of PCA in an autopsy model. RESULTS: When autopsied prostates were evaluated for cancer based on prostatic specific antigen <4 ng/ml, negative biopsy or both criteria, the contamination rate was 22%, 15% or 12%, respectively. The effect of contamination by occult PCA alters the odds ratio and p-value of the results. CONCLUSION: It is important to recognize that contamination of the control population by occult carcinomas reduces the reliability of the results. Rigorous characterization of the experimental and control groups is needed in order to preserve the integrity of the conclusions.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies of prostate cancer (PCA) which are based on case control comparisons may be effected by verification bias. Verification bias exists when the experimental group has verified PCA, while the control group is presumed to be cancer free, but this is not histologically verified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of the literature and our recent experience with case-control studies of PCA in an autopsy model. RESULTS: When autopsied prostates were evaluated for cancer based on prostatic specific antigen <4 ng/ml, negative biopsy or both criteria, the contamination rate was 22%, 15% or 12%, respectively. The effect of contamination by occult PCA alters the odds ratio and p-value of the results. CONCLUSION: It is important to recognize that contamination of the control population by occult carcinomas reduces the reliability of the results. Rigorous characterization of the experimental and control groups is needed in order to preserve the integrity of the conclusions.
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; M Scott Lucia; Phyllis J Goodman; John J Crowley; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Margaret E Wright; Shih-Chen Chang; Arthur Schatzkin; Demetrius Albanes; Victor Kipnis; Traci Mouw; Paul Hurwitz; Albert Hollenbeck; Michael F Leitzmann Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Richard F Jones; Robert Sunheimer; Henry Friedman; David Miller; Ronald Ginsburg; Mary Jumbelic; Gregory Threatte; Gabriel P Haas Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Haojie Li; Philip W Kantoff; Edward Giovannucci; Michael F Leitzmann; J Michael Gaziano; Meir J Stampfer; Jing Ma Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ji-Yeob Choi; Marian L Neuhouser; Matt Barnett; Matthew Hudson; Alan R Kristal; Mark Thornquist; Irena B King; Gary E Goodman; Christine B Ambrosone Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Simon M Collin; Chris Metcalfe; Helga Refsum; Sarah J Lewis; Luisa Zuccolo; George Davey Smith; Lina Chen; Ross Harris; Michael Davis; Gemma Marsden; Carole Johnston; J Athene Lane; Marta Ebbing; Kaare Harald Bønaa; Ottar Nygård; Per Magne Ueland; Maria V Grau; John A Baron; Jenny L Donovan; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; A David Smith; Richard M Martin Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Taro Iguchi; Shozo Sugita; Ching Y Wang; Nancy B Newman; Tatsuya Nakatani; Gabriel P Haas Journal: In Vivo Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Taro Iguchi; Ching Y Wang; Nicolas B Delongchamps; Minoru Kato; Satoshi Tamada; Takeshi Yamasaki; Gustavo de la Roza; Tatsuya Nakatani; Gabriel P Haas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240