Literature DB >> 25492942

Assessing the effectiveness of a cancer screening test in the presence of another screening modality.

Jessica Chubak1, Rebecca A Hubbard2, Eric Johnson3, Aruna Kamineni3, Carolyn M Rutter4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Analysis of cancer screening effectiveness is challenging in part because of competing tests, which are additional screening tests that identify the condition of interest. For example, studies investigating screening with faecal occult blood tests to prevent colorectal cancer mortality need to consider the occurrence of screening colonoscopy. This paper compares analytic approaches to accounting for competing tests in analyses of cancer screening data.
METHODS: We used simulations to compare bias and efficiency across approaches in different scenarios, quantify bias, and make recommendations for analyzing the effectiveness of a screening test in the presence of competing tests.
RESULTS: Under all scenarios, the best performing approach for accommodating competing screening tests was censoring at the time of the competing screening test (range in bias across scenarios: -7.6% to 1.6%). Bias from other approaches ranged from 23.9% to 652.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: Censoring at the competing screening exam is the recommended approach for studying cancer screening effectiveness in the presence of competing tests. Censoring avoids confounding by prior competing test results and selection bias resulting from analyzing data on participants after they received a competing screening exam. Results from this study are broadly applicable to screening studies for other conditions, including other types of cancer.
© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; cancer screening; epidemiologic methods; observational study

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25492942      PMCID: PMC4431895          DOI: 10.1177/0969141314562036

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


  14 in total

1.  Ascertainment of colonoscopy indication using administrative data.

Authors:  Deborah A Fisher; Janet M Grubber; John M Castor; Cynthia J Coffman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Evelyn P Whitlock; Jennifer S Lin; Elizabeth Liles; Tracy L Beil; Rongwei Fu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  5-year incidence of adenomas after negative colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk persons [see comment].

Authors:  D K Rex; O W Cummings; D J Helper; T V Nowak; J M McGill; G Z Chiao; P Y Kwo; K T Gottlieb; S O Ikenberry; F G Gress; G A Lehman; L J Born
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Comparison of a brush-sampling fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin with a sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in detection of colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Alicia Smith; Graeme P Young; Stephen R Cole; Peter Bampton
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer.

Authors:  Harminder Singh; Zoann Nugent; Alain A Demers; Erich V Kliewer; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Charles N Bernstein
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2010-06-20       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Low risk of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas more than 10 years after negative colonoscopy.

Authors:  Hermann Brenner; Ulrike Haug; Volker Arndt; Christa Stegmaier; Lutz Altenhofen; Michael Hoffmeister
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; David G Weiss; William V Harford; Dennis J Ahnen; Dawn Provenzale; Stephen J Sontag; Thomas G Schnell; Gregorio Chejfec; Donald R Campbell; Jayashri Kidao; John H Bond; Douglas B Nelson; George Triadafilopoulos; Francisco C Ramirez; Judith F Collins; Tiina K Johnston; Kenneth R McQuaid; Harinder Garewal; Richard E Sampliner; Romeo Esquivel; Douglas Robertson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Colorectal cancer screening mode preferences among US veterans.

Authors:  Adam A Powell; Diana J Burgess; Sally W Vernon; Joan M Griffin; Joseph P Grill; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Melissa R Partin
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2009-09-08       Impact factor: 4.018

View more
  1 in total

1.  Adherence to colorectal cancer screening measured as the proportion of time covered.

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Bianca M Sigel; Edward Yang; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta; Joanne M Sanders; Katharine McCallister; Amit G Singal
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 9.427

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.