Journal
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 184, Issue 2, Pages 140-147Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwv342
Keywords
bias; early detection of cancer; mass screening; mathematical model; overdiagnosis; randomized clinical trial
Categories
Funding
- National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [R01 CA192402, U01 CA199338]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Cancer overdiagnosis is frequently estimated using the excess incidence in a screened group relative to that in an unscreened group. However, conditions for unbiased estimation are poorly understood. We developed a mathematical framework to project the effects of screening on the incidence of relevant cancers-that is, cancers that would present clinically without screening. Screening advances the date of diagnosis for a fraction of preclinical relevant cancers. Which diagnoses are advanced and by how much depends on the preclinical detectable period, test sensitivity, and screening patterns. Using the model, we projected incidence in common trial designs and population settings and compared excess incidence with true overdiagnosis. In trials with no control arm screening, unbiased estimates are available using cumulative incidence if the screen arm stops screening and using annual incidence if the screen arm continues screening. In both designs, unbiased estimation requires waiting until screening stabilizes plus the maximum preclinical period. In continued-screen trials and population settings, excess cumulative incidence is persistently biased. We investigated this bias in published estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer after 9-13 years. In conclusion, no trial or population setting automatically permits unbiased estimation of overdiagnosis; sufficient follow-up and appropriate analysis remain crucial.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available