An ongoing case-control study to evaluate the NHS breast screening programme

BMC Cancer

Nathalie J Massat¹  Peter D Sasieni¹  Dharmishta Parmar¹  Stephen W Duffy¹ 

[1] Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine - Room 009, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK

关键词: Bias;    Advanced stage;    Overdiagnosis;    Mortality;    Incidence;    Case–control;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  859196
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-13-596

 received in 2013-10-03, accepted in 2013-12-04,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

In England, a national breast screening programme (NHSBSP) has been in place since 1988, and assessment of its impact on breast cancer incidence and mortality is essential to ensure that the programme is indeed doing more good than harm. This article describes large observation studies designed to estimate the effects of the current programme in terms of the benefits on breast cancer incidence and mortality and detrimental effect in terms of overdiagnosis. The case-control design of the cervical screening programme evaluation was highly effective in informing policy on screening intervals and age ranges. We propose innovative selection of cases and controls and gathering of additional variables to address new outcomes of interest and develop new methodologies to control for potential sources of bias.

Methods/Design

Traditional case-control evaluation of breast screening uses women who have died from breast cancer as cases, and women known to be alive at the time of case death as controls. Breast screening histories prior to the cases’ date of first diagnosis are compared. If breast screening is preventing mortality from breast cancer, cases will be characterised by a lesser screening history than controls. All deaths and incident cases of primary breast cancer in England within each 2-year study period will be included in this ongoing evaluation. Cases will be age- and area-matched to controls and variables related to cancer treatment and breast tumour pathology will be obtained to investigate the interplay between screening and treatment, and the effect of screening on incidence of advanced stage disease. Screening attendance at other national screening programmes will also be collected to derive superior adjustment for self-selection bias.

The study is registered and has received full ethics approval.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Massat et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cancer Research UK: Breast cancer statistics. Cancer Research UK 2010. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/breast webcite] (Accessed 28/03/13
• [2]Verbeek AL, Broeders MJ: Evaluation of cancer service screening: case referent studies recommended. Stat Methods Med Res 2010, 19:487-505.
• [3]Allgood PC, Warwick J, Warren RM, Day NE, Duffy SW: A case-control study of the impact of the East Anglian breast screening programme on breast cancer mortality. Br J Cancer 2008, 98(1):206-209.
• [4]Fielder HM, Warwick J, Brook D, Gower-Thomas K, Cuzick J, Monypenny I, Duffy SW: A case–control study to estimate the impact on breast cancer death of the breast screening programme in Wales. J Med Screen 2004, 11:194-198.
• [5]Walter SD: Mammographic screening: case–control studies. Ann Oncol 2003, 14:1190-1192.
• [6]Duffy SW, Cuzick J, Tabar L, Vitak B, Hsiu-Hsi Chen T, Yen M-F, Smith RA: Correcting for non-compliance bias in case–control studies to evaluate cancer screening programmes. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat 2002, 51:235-243.
• [7]Paci E: Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen 2012, 19(Suppl 1):5-13.
• [8]Cancer Intervention Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Collaborators: Executive summary. JNCI Monogr 2006, 2006(36):1-2.
• [9]Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer Screening: Screening for breast cancer in England: past and future. NHS Cancer Screen Programme 2006., 61http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp61.html webcite (Accessed August 2013)
• [10]Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH: The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 2004, 42(5):793-806.
• [11]Broeders M, Moss S, Nystrom L, Njor S, Jonsson H, Paap E, Massat N, Duffy S, Lynge E, Paci E: The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen 2012, 19(Suppl 1):14-25.
• [12]Machin D, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pinol A: Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies. Oxford: Blackwell; 1997.
• [13]Duffy SW, Tabar L, Olsen AH, Vitak B, Allgood PC, Chen TH, Yen AM, Smith RA: Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen 2010, 17:25-30.
• [14]Connor RJ, Boer R, Prorok PC, Weed DL: Investigation of Design and Bias Issues in Case-Control Studies of Cancer Screening Using Microsimulation. Am J Epidemiol 2000, 151:991-998.
• [15]Duffy SW, Olsen A-H, Gabe R, Tabar L, Warwick J, Fielder H, Tryggvadóttir L, Agbaje OF: Screening opportunity bias in case-control studies of cancer screening. J Appl Stat 2008, 35:537-546.
• [16]Puliti D, Miccinesi G, Paci E: Overdiagnosis in breast cancer: Design and methods of estimation in observational studies. Prev Med 2011, 53:131-133.
• [17]Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) Screening and Immunisations team: Breast Screening Programme England 2011-12 report. Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) 2013. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB10339 webcite] (Accessed August 2013
• [18]Gabe R, Tryggvadottir L, Sigfusson BF, Olafsdottir GH, Sigurdsson K, Duffy SW: A case-control study to estimate the impact of the Icelandic population-based mammography screening program on breast cancer death. Acta Radiol 2007, 48:948-955.
• [19]Duffy SW, Nagtegaal ID, Wallis M, Cafferty FH, Houssami N, Warwick J, Allgood PC, Kearins O, Tappenden N, O'Sullivan E, et al.: Correcting for Lead Time and Length Bias in Estimating the Effect of Screen Detection on Cancer Survival. Am J Epidemiol 2008, 168:98-104.
• [20]Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Yen MF, Chiang CF, Krusemo UB, Tot T, Smith RA: The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000, 38:625-651.
• [21]Biesheuvel C, Barratt A, Howard K, Houssami N, Irwig L: Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2007, 8:1129-1138.
• [22]Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J: Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ 2009, 339:b2968.
• [23]Wishart GC, Greenberg DC, Chou P, Brown CH, Duffy S, Purushotham AD: Treatment and survival in breast cancer in the Eastern Region of England. Ann Oncol 2010, 21:291-296.
• [24]Hofler M: Causal inference based on counterfactuals. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005, 5:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Cassidy A, Myles JP, van Tongeren M, Page RD, Liloglou T, Duffy SW, Field JK: The LLP risk model: an individual risk prediction model for lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2008, 98:270-276.
• [26]Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening: The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012, 380(9855):1778-1786.