Literature DB >> 23732716

Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening.

Ruth Etzioni1, Roman Gulati, Leslie Mallinger, Jeanne Mandelblatt.   

Abstract

Knowledge of the likelihood that a screening-detected case of cancer has been overdiagnosed is vitally important to make treatment decisions and develop screening policy. An overdiagnosed case is an excess case detected by screening. Estimates of the frequency of overdiagnosis in breast and prostate cancer screening vary greatly across studies. This article identifies features of overdiagnosis studies that influence results and shows their effect by using published research. First, different ways to define and measure overdiagnosis are considered. Second, contextual features and how they affect overdiagnosis estimates are examined. Third, the effect of estimation approach is discussed. Many studies use excess incidence under screening as a proxy for overdiagnosis. Others use statistical models to make inferences about lead time or natural history and then derive the corresponding fraction of cases that are overdiagnosed. This article concludes with questions that readers of overdiagnosis studies can use to evaluate the validity and relevance of published estimates and recommends that authors of studies quantifying overdiagnosis provide information about these features.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23732716      PMCID: PMC3733533          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  35 in total

1.  Estimation and prediction for cancer screening models using deconvolution and smoothing.

Authors:  P F Pinsky
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  How much of the recent rise in breast cancer incidence can be explained by increases in mammography utilization? A dynamic population model approach.

Authors:  E J Feuer; L M Wun
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1992-12-15       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Overdiagnosis in early detection programs.

Authors:  Ori Davidov; Marvin Zelen
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 4.  Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro; Andrew H Briggs; Uwe Siebert; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Clinical evidence for and implications of the multistep development of prostate cancer.

Authors:  H B Carter; S Piantadosi; J T Isaacs
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Estimation of the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data.

Authors:  S D Walter; N E Day
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; John L Gore; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; David F Penson; Julie M Legler; Dante di Tommaso; Rob Boer; Peter H Gann; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-07-03       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence.

Authors:  Archie Bleyer; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  57 in total

1.  A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Jing Xia; Rebecca Hubbard; Noel S Weiss; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Screening for Lung Cancer: Balancing Hope With Doubt About Applicability.

Authors:  Hans-Werner Hense
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Overdiagnosis and Lives Saved by Reflex Testing Men With Intermediate Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Todd M Morgan; Teresa A'mar; Sarah P Psutka; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Conditions for Valid Empirical Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis in Randomized Trials and Population Studies.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Eric J Feuer; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Estimating the frequency of indolent breast cancer in screening trials.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Wenli Dong; Roman Gulati; Marc D Ryser; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.021

7.  Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Oguzhan Alagoz; Natasha K Stout; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kim Dittus; Ted A James; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Elizabeth S Burnside; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate-specific antigen screening.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Ruth Etzioni; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; John L Gore; Angela B Mariotto; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Evaluating Parameter Uncertainty in a Simulation Model of Cancer Using Emulators.

Authors:  Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Luc Coffeng; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Absolute Effect of Prostate Cancer Screening: Balance of Benefits and Harms by Center within the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Anssi Auvinen; Sue M Moss; Teuvo L J Tammela; Kimmo Taari; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Gunnar Aus; Marco Zappa; Donella Puliti; Louis J Denis; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marco Randazzo; Alvaro Paez; Marcos Lujan; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.