Correcting for lead time and length bias in estimating the effect of screen detection on cancer survival

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 168, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 98-104

  Duffy, Stephen W ^a   Nagtegaal, Iris D ^b   Wallis, Matthew ^c   Cafferty, Fay H ^a   Houssami, Nehmat ^d   Warwick, Jane ^a   Allgood, Prue C ^a   Kearins, Olive ^e   Tappenden, Nancy ^e   O'Sullivan, Emma ^e   Lawrence, Gill ^e  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Dutch Cancer Society   (Netherlands)

^c ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias (epidemiology); Breast neoplasms; Mass screening; Models, statistical; Survival

Indexed keywords

CANCER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DETECTION METHOD; EPIDEMIOLOGY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL; TUMOR; WOMENS HEALTH;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL TIME; UNITED KINGDOM;

AGED; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS;

ENGLAND; EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WEST MIDLANDS; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 45849090278     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn120     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Hutchison GB, Shapiro S. Lead time gained by diagnostic screening for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1968;41:665-81.
2. Zelen M, Fainleib M. On the theory of screening for chronic disease. Biometrika 1969;56:601-14.
3. Yen MF, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1746-54.
4. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, et al. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:187-210.
5. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Michael HE, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472-7.
6. Maurice A, Evans DGR, Shenton A, et al. Screening younger women with a family history of breast cancer - does early detection improve outcome? Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1385-90.
7. Walter SD, Stitt LW. Evaluating the survival of cancer cases detected by screening. Stat Med 1987;6:885-900.
8. Day NE, Walter SD. Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: estimation procedures for mass screening programs. Biometrics 1984;40:1-14.
9. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: updated mortality results and new insights from long term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:625-51.
10. Duffy SW, Cuzick J, Tabar L, et al. Correcting for noncompliance bias in case-control studies to evaluate cancer screening programs. Appl Stat 2002;51:235-43.
11. Paci E, Duffy, SW. Modelling the analysis of breast cancer screening programmes: sensitivity, lead time and predictive value in the Florence District Programme (1975-1986). Int J Epidemiol 1991;20:852-8.
12. van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD, van der Maas PJ, et al. A model for breast cancer screening. Cancer 1990;66:1601-12.
13. Cong XJ, Shen Y, Miller AB. Estimation of age-specific sensitivity and sojourn time in breast cancer screening studies. Stat Med 2005;24:3123-38.
14. Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, et al. Overdiagnosis, sojourn time and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme. Breast J 2006;12:338-42.
15. Weedon-Fekjaer H, Vatten LJ, Aalen OO, et al. Estimating mean sojourn time and screening test sensitivity in breast cancer mammography screening: new results. J Med Screen 2005;12:172-8.