Evaluation of cancer service screening: Case referent studies recommended

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 487-505

  Verbeek, André L M ^a   Broeders, Mireille J M ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; REVIEW; RISK; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN;

COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; NEOPLASMS; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; ODDS RATIO;

EID: 77957770449     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280209359856     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Morrison AS Case definition in case-control studies of the efficacy of screening and diagnostic testing. American Journal of Epidemiology 1982 ; 115: 6-8.
2. Weiss NS Control definition in case-control studies of the efficacy of screening and diagnostic testing. American Journal of Epidemiology 1983 ; 118: 457-460.
3. Weiss NS Application of the case-control method in the evaluation of screening. Epidemiological Review 1994 ; 16: 102-108.
4. Walter SD Mammographic screening: case-control studies. Annals of Oncology 2003 ; 14: 1190-1192.
5. Miettinen OS Estimability and estimation in case-referent studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 1976 ; 103: 226-235.
6. Miettinen OS Etiologic research. Needed revision of concepts and principles. Scandinavian Journal for Work Environment and Health 1999 ; 25: 484-490.
7. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. WHO, Geneva ; 1968.
8. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer (2 nd edn). European Commission, Europe against cancer programme, Luxembourg ; 2006.
9. Perry N, Broeders M, Wolf C de, Törnberg S, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (4 th edn). European Commission, Europe Against Cancer programme, Luxembourg ; 2006.
10. Health Council of the Netherlands. Screening: between hope and hype. Health Council of The Netherlands, The Hague ; 2008. Report No.: Publication no. 2008/05.
11. Paap E., Broeders MJM, van Schoor G., Otten JDM, Verbeek ALM. Large increase in a Dutch woman's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer 2008 ; 44: 1485-1487.
12. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. NETB interim report 2007. Main results breast cancer screening programme in The Netherlands. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam ; 2007.
13. Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM. National evaluation team for breast cancer screening, national expert and training centre for breast cancer screening. Evaluation of The Netherlands breast screening programme. Annals of Oncology 2003 ; 14: 1203-5.
14. Tabár L., Smith RA, Vitak B., et al. Mammographic screening: a key factor in the control of breast cancer. Cancer Journal 2003 ; 9: 15-27.
15. Smith RA, Cokkinides V., Eyre HJ American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2004. CA. Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2004 ; 54: 41-52.
16. Zelen M. Theory of early detection of breast cancer in the general population. In: Heuson JC, et al., eds. Breast cancer: trends in research and treatment. Raven Press, New York ; 1976: 287-300.
17. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Digital Mammographic Imaging Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New England Journal of Medicine 2005 ; 353: 1773-1783.
18. Klaasen H., Klingen HA, Hofvind S., Skaane P. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. European Journal of Radiology 2008 ; 18: 183-191.
19. Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening; updated review. Acta Radiologica 2009 ; 50: 3-14.
20. Vininicombe S. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK Breast Screening Programme and systematic review of published data. Radiology 2009 ; 251: 347-358.
21. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2005 ; 353: 1784-1792.
22. Berry DA The screening mammography paradox; better when found, perhaps better not to find. British Journal of Cancer 2008 ; 98: 1729-1730.
23. Broeders MJM, Verbeek ALM. Mammographic screening only matters in the detectable preclinical period of breast cancer. Journal of Medical Screening 2005 ; 12: 107.
24. Etzioni RD, Weiss NS Analysis of case-control studies of screening: Impact of misspecifying the duration of detectable preclinical pathologic changes. American Journal of Epidemiology 1998 ; 148: 292-297.
25. Greenland S., Thomas DC On the need for the rare disease assumption in case-control studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 1982 ; 116: 547-553.
26. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research; principles and quantitative methods. Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York ; 1982.
27. Duffy SW, Cuzick J., Tabár L., et al. Correcting for non-compliance bias in case-control studies to evaluate cancer screening programmes. Applied Statistics 2002 ; 51: 235-243.
28. Paci E., Duffy SW, Giorgi D., et al. Quantification of the effect of mammographic screening on fatal breast cancers: The Florence Programme 1990-96. British Journal of Cancer 2002 ; 87: 65-69.
29. Olsen AH, Njor SH, Vejborg I., et al. Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after the introduction of mammography screening: a cohort study. British Medical Journal 2005 ; 330: 220-222.
30. Cronin KA, Weed DL, Connor RJ, Prorok PC Case-control studies of cancer screening: theory and practice. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1998 ; 90: 498-504.
31. Fielder HM, Warwick J., Brook D., et al. A case-control study to estimate the the impact on breast cancer death of the breast screening programme in Wales. Journal of Medical Screening 2004 ; 11: 194-198.
32. Verbeek ALM, Hendriks Jhcl, Holland R., Mravunac M., Sturmans F., Day NE Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography; first results of the Nijmegen project, 1975-1981. Lancet 1984 ; i: 1222-1224.
33. Schlesselman JJ Assessing effects of confounding variables. American Journal of Epidemiology 1978 ; 108: 3-8.
34. Greenland S. Basic methods for sensitivity analysis of biases. International Journal of Epidemiology 1996 ; 25: 1107-1116.
35. Boyd NF, Guo H., Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2007 ; 356: 227-236.
36. Cornfield J., Haenszel W., Hammond EC, et al. Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959 ; 22: 173-203.
37. Broeders MJM, Verbeek ALM, Straatman H., et al. Repeated mammographic screening reduces breast cancer mortality along the continuum of age. Journal of Medical Screening 2002 ; 9: 163-167.
38. Tabár L., Chen HHT, Yen MFA, et al. Mammographic tumor features can reliably predict the long-term outcome of women with 1-14 mm invasive breast cancer: suggestions for revision of current therapeutic practice and the TNM classification system. Cancer 2004 ; 101: 1745-1759.
39. Tabár L., Dean PB Thirty years of experience with mammography screening: a new approach to the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research 2008 ; 10: 1-3.
40. Otten JDM, Broeders MJM, den Heeten GJ, et al. Life expectancy of screen-detected invasive breast cancer patients compared to women invited for screening. Cancer 2009 ; 116: 586-591.
41. Otten JDM, Broeders MJM, Fracheboud J., Otto SJ, Koning HJ de, Verbeek ALM. Impressive time-related influence of the Dutch screening programme on breast cancer incidence and mortality, 1975-2006. International Journal for Cancer 2008 ; 123: 1929-1934.
42. Miettinen OS Proportion of disease prevented by a given exposure, trait or intervention. American Journal of Epidemiology 1974 ; 99: 325-332.
43. Straatman H., Verbeek ALM, Peeters PHM. Etiologic and prevented fraction in case-control studies of screening. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1988 ; 41: 807-808.
44. Brem RF, Ioffe M., Rapelyea JA, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: detection with mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2009 ; 192: 379-383.
45. Holland R., Rijken H., Hendriks J. The Dutch population-based mammography screening: 30-year experience. Breast Care 2007 ; 2: 12-18.
46. Elmore JG, Reisch LM, Barton MB, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005 ; 97: 1035-1043.
47. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. New England Journal of Medicine 2009 ; 360: 1310-1320.
48. Schröder FH, Hugosson J., Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer-mortality in a randomized European study. New England Journal of Medicine 2009 ; 360: 1320-1328.
49. IARC Working Group. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. British Medical Journal 1986 ; 293: 659-664.
50. Concato J., Shah N., Horwitz RI Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies and the hierarchy of research designs. New England Journal of Medicine 2000 ; 342: 1887-1892.
51. Van Veen WA, Knottnerus JA Screening mammography [correspondence]. Lancet 2002 ; 359: 904-905.
52. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies. Breast cancer screening. IARC Press, Lyon ; 2002.
53. Gøtzsche PC, Jorgensen KJ Benefits and harms of screening [Rapid response to BMJ 2005;330:220]. British Medical Journal online 2005, January 17.
54. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography Cochranereview. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2006 ; (4). CD001877.
55. Puliti D., Miccinesi G., Collina N., et al. Effectiveness of service screening: a case-control study to assess breast cancer mortality reduction. British Journal of Cancer 2008 ; 99: 423-427. Erratum in: British Journal of Cancer 2008 ; 99: 1756
56. Roder D., Houssami N., Farshid G., et al. Population screening and intensity of screening are associated with reduced breast cancer mortality: evidence of efficacy of mammography screening in Australia. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2008 ; 108: 409-416.
57. Gabe R., Tryggvadóttir L., Sigfússon BF, et al. A case-control study to estimate the impact of the Icelandic population-based mammography screening program on breast cancer death. Acta Radiologica 2007 ; 48: 948-955.
58. Allgood PC, Warwick J., Warren RM, et al. A case-control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast screening programme on breast cancer mortality. British Journal of Cancer 2008 ; 98: 206-209.
59. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, Saskin R., Urbach DR, Rabeneck LR Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009 ; 150: 1-8.
60. Yang B., Morrell S., Zuo Y., Roder D., et al. A case-control study of the protective benefit of cervical screening against invasive cervical cancer in NSW Australian women. Cancer, Causes and Control 2008 ; 19: 569-576.
61. Sagawa M., Nakayama T., Tsukada H., et al. The efficacy of lung cancer screening conducted in 1990s: four case-control studies in Japan. Lung Cancer 2003 ; 41: 29-36.
62. Marcella SW, Rhoads GG, Carson JL, et al. Prostate-specific antigen screening and mortality from prostate cancer. Journal General Internal Medicine 2008 ; 23: 248-253.