Zhao Yang1, Irene Ol Wong1, Wei Deng2, Ru Chen3, Jiachen Zhou3,4, Wenqiang Wei3,5. 1. School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing 100142, China. 3. Cancer Registry Office, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an 710061, China. 5. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate what extent lead-time bias is likely to affect endoscopic screening effectiveness for esophageal cancer in the high-risk area in China. METHODS: A screening model based on the epidemiological cancer registry data, yielding a population-level incidence and mortality rates, was carried out to simulate study participants in the high-risk area in China, and investigate the effect of lead-time bias on endoscopic screening with control for length bias. RESULTS: Of 100,000 participants, 6,150 (6.15%) were diagnosed with esophageal squamous dysplasia during the 20-year follow-up period. The estimated lead time ranged from 1.67 to 5.78 years, with a median time of 4.62 years [interquartile range (IQR): 4.07-5.11 years] in the high-risk area in China. Lead-time bias exaggerated screening effectiveness severely, causing more than a 10% overestimation in 5-year cause-specific survival rate and around a 43% reduction in cause-specific hazard ratio. The magnitude of lead-time bias on endoscopic screening for esophageal cancer varied depending on the screening strategies, in which an inverted U-shaped and U-shaped effects were observed in the 5-year cause-specific survival rate and cause-specific hazard ratio respectively concerning a range of ages for primary screening. CONCLUSIONS: Lead-time bias, usually causing an overestimation of screening effectiveness, is an elementary and fundamental issue in cancer screening. Quantification and correction of lead-time bias are essential when evaluating the effectiveness of endoscopic screening in the high-risk area in China.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate what extent lead-time bias is likely to affect endoscopic screening effectiveness for esophageal cancer in the high-risk area in China. METHODS: A screening model based on the epidemiological cancer registry data, yielding a population-level incidence and mortality rates, was carried out to simulate study participants in the high-risk area in China, and investigate the effect of lead-time bias on endoscopic screening with control for length bias. RESULTS: Of 100,000 participants, 6,150 (6.15%) were diagnosed with esophageal squamous dysplasia during the 20-year follow-up period. The estimated lead time ranged from 1.67 to 5.78 years, with a median time of 4.62 years [interquartile range (IQR): 4.07-5.11 years] in the high-risk area in China. Lead-time bias exaggerated screening effectiveness severely, causing more than a 10% overestimation in 5-year cause-specific survival rate and around a 43% reduction in cause-specific hazard ratio. The magnitude of lead-time bias on endoscopic screening for esophageal cancer varied depending on the screening strategies, in which an inverted U-shaped and U-shaped effects were observed in the 5-year cause-specific survival rate and cause-specific hazard ratio respectively concerning a range of ages for primary screening. CONCLUSIONS: Lead-time bias, usually causing an overestimation of screening effectiveness, is an elementary and fundamental issue in cancer screening. Quantification and correction of lead-time bias are essential when evaluating the effectiveness of endoscopic screening in the high-risk area in China.
Authors: Hashem B El-Serag; Aanand D Naik; Zhigang Duan; Mohammad Shakhatreh; Ashley Helm; Amita Pathak; Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey; Jason Hou; Theresa Nguyen; John Chen; Jennifer R Kramer Journal: Gut Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Edward J Tanner; Dennis S Chi; Eric L Eisenhauer; Teresa P Diaz-Montes; Antonio Santillan; Robert E Bristow Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-02-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: W-Q Wei; C C Abnet; N Lu; M J Roth; G-Q Wang; B A Dye; Z-W Dong; P R Taylor; P Albert; Y-L Qiao; S M Dawsey Journal: Gut Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Robert A Smith; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley; Richard C Wender Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Freddie Bray; Rebecca L Siegel; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702