Literature DB >> 26152677

Statistical analyses in Swedish randomised trials on mammography screening and in other randomised trials on cancer screening: a systematic review.

Philippe Autier1, Mathieu Boniol2, Michel Smans3, Richard Sullivan4, Peter Boyle2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We compared calculations of relative risks of cancer death in Swedish mammography trials and in other cancer screening trials. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women from 30 to 74 years of age.
SETTING: Randomised trials on cancer screening.
DESIGN: For each trial, we identified the intervention period, when screening was offered to screening groups and not to control groups, and the post-intervention period, when screening (or absence of screening) was the same in screening and control groups. We then examined which cancer deaths had been used for the computation of relative risk of cancer death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risk of cancer death.
RESULTS: In 17 non-breast screening trials, deaths due to cancers diagnosed during the intervention and post-intervention periods were used for relative risk calculations. In the five Swedish trials, relative risk calculations used deaths due to breast cancers found during intervention periods, but deaths due to breast cancer found at first screening of control groups were added to these groups. After reallocation of the added breast cancer deaths to post-intervention periods of control groups, relative risks of 0.86 (0.76; 0.97) were obtained for cancers found during intervention periods and 0.83 (0.71; 0.97) for cancers found during post-intervention periods, indicating constant reduction in the risk of breast cancer death during follow-up, irrespective of screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of unconventional statistical methods in Swedish trials has led to overestimation of risk reduction in breast cancer death attributable to mammography screening. The constant risk reduction observed in screening groups was probably due to the trial design that optimised awareness and medical management of women allocated to screening groups. © The Royal Society of Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; randomised trials; screening; statistical analyses

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26152677      PMCID: PMC4672251          DOI: 10.1177/0141076815593403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Med        ISSN: 0141-0768            Impact factor:   5.344


  26 in total

1.  Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study.

Authors:  Sophia Zackrisson; Ingvar Andersson; Lars Janzon; Jonas Manjer; Jens Peter Garne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-03

2.  Effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in Iceland, 1964-2002: a study on trends in incidence and mortality and the effect of risk factors.

Authors:  Kristjan Sigurdsson; Helgi Sigvaldason
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.636

3.  Differences in endpoints between the Swedish W-E (two county) trial of mammographic screening and the Swedish overview: methodological consequences.

Authors:  L Holmberg; S W Duffy; A M F Yen; L Tabár; B Vitak; L Nyström; J Frisell
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 4.  Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal.

Authors:  D A Berry
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-10-07       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates.

Authors:  Brenda K Edwards; Elizabeth Ward; Betsy A Kohler; Christie Eheman; Ann G Zauber; Robert N Anderson; Ahmedin Jemal; Maria J Schymura; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Laura C Seeff; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; S Luuk Goede; Lynn A G Ries
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  L Nyström; L E Rutqvist; S Wall; A Lindgren; M Lindqvist; S Rydén; I Andersson; N Bjurstam; G Fagerberg; J Frisell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-04-17       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Followup after 11 years--update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial.

Authors:  J Frisell; E Lidbrink; L Hellström; L E Rutqvist
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan.

Authors:  S Shapiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997

9.  Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmö Mammographic Screening Program.

Authors:  I Andersson; L Janzon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997

10.  Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sue M Moss; Howard Cuckle; Andy Evans; Louise Johns; Michael Waller; Lynda Bobrow
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-12-09       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  8 in total

1.  Systematic review of the breast cancer screening trials is error-ridden.

Authors:  László Tabar; Nicholas Day; Robert Smith; Tony H H Chen; Amy M F Yen; Stephen Duffy
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  The Swedish randomised controlled trial on mammography screening has been properly designed, conducted and analysed.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Tumor suppressor p53 induces miR-15a processing to inhibit neuronal apoptosis inhibitory protein (NAIP) in the apoptotic response DNA damage in breast cancer cell.

Authors:  Li Yang; Wei Zhao; Ping Wei; Wenshu Zuo; Shouhui Zhu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 4.060

4.  Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population based study.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Magali Boniol; Alice Koechlin; Cécile Pizot; Mathieu Boniol
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-12-05

5.  Conversion of immunohistochemical markers and breast density are associated with pathological response and prognosis in very young breast cancer patients who fail to achieve a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Yue Zhao; Xiaolei Wang; Yuanxi Huang; Xianli Zhou; Dongwei Zhang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 6.  Population Screening for Cancer in High-Income Settings: Lessons for Low- and Middle-Income Economies.

Authors:  Philippe Autier; Richard Sullivan
Journal:  J Glob Oncol       Date:  2019-02

7.  Updated results of the Gothenburg Trial of Mammographic Screening.

Authors:  Nils G Bjurstam; Lena M Björneld; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Evaluation issues in the Swedish Two-County Trial of breast cancer screening: An historical review.

Authors:  Laszlo Tabar; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Chen-Yang Hsu; Wendy Yi-Ying Wu; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Kerri Beckmann; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 2.136

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.