5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      All‐cause mortality versus cancer‐specific mortality as outcome in cancer screening trials: A review and modeling study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          All‐cause mortality has been suggested as an end‐point in cancer screening trials in order to avoid biases in attributing the cause of death. The aim of this study was to investigate which sample size and follow‐up is needed to find a significant reduction in all‐cause mortality.

          Methods

          A literature review was conducted to identify previous studies that modeled the effect of screening on all‐cause mortality. Microsimulation modeling was used to simulate breast cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer screening trials. Model outputs were: cancer‐specific deaths, all‐cause deaths, and life‐years gained per year of follow‐up.

          Results

          There were large differences between the evaluated cancers. For lung cancer, when 40 000 high‐risk people are randomized to each arm, a significant reduction in all‐cause mortality could be expected between 11 and 13 years of follow‐up. For breast cancer, a significant reduction could be found between 16 and 26 years of follow‐up for a sample size of over 300 000 women in each arm. For colorectal cancer, 600 000 persons in each arm were required to be followed for 15‐20 years. Our systematic literature review identified seven papers, which showed highly similar results to our estimates.

          Conclusion

          Cancer screening trials are able to demonstrate a significant reduction in all‐cause mortality due to screening, but require very large sample sizes. Depending on the cancer, 40 000‐600 000 participants per arm are needed to demonstrate a significant reduction. The reduction in all‐cause mortality can only be detected between specific years of follow‐up, more limited than the timeframe to detect a reduction in cancer‐specific mortality.

          Abstract

          Cancer screening trials are only able to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in all‐cause mortality when 40 000‐600 000 participants per arm are participating. In addition, this significant difference can only be observed between a limited period of follow‐up.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

          Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Screening for breast cancer with mammography

            A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary. To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012). Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials). If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Screening for prostate cancer

              Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                e.heijnsdijk@erasmusmc.nl
                Journal
                Cancer Med
                Cancer Med
                10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7634
                CAM4
                Cancer Medicine
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2045-7634
                18 August 2019
                October 2019
                : 8
                : 13 ( doiID: 10.1002/cam4.v8.13 )
                : 6127-6138
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Public Health Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Syreon Research Institute Budapest Hungary
                [ 3 ] Finnish Cancer Registry Helsinki Finland
                [ 4 ] SC Epidemiology, Screening, Cancer Registry Città della Salute e della Scienza University Hospital, CPO Turin Italy
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Eveline A. M. Heijnsdijk, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

                Email: e.heijnsdijk@ 123456erasmusmc.nl

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4890-6069
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4682-3646
                Article
                CAM42476
                10.1002/cam4.2476
                6792501
                31422585
                ae0c4aab-4bd3-4142-8159-18efbb8c436a
                © 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 March 2019
                : 04 July 2019
                : 25 July 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 12, Words: 6997
                Funding
                Funded by: Horizon 2020 Framework Programme , open-funder-registry 10.13039/100010661;
                Award ID: 634753
                Categories
                Original Research
                Cancer Prevention
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                October 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.7.0 mode:remove_FC converted:10.10.2019

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                breast,cancer screening,colorectal,evaluation,lung,mortality reduction,trial
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                breast, cancer screening, colorectal, evaluation, lung, mortality reduction, trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article