Methodological approaches to population based research of screening procedures in the presence of selection bias and exposure measurement error: colonoscopy and colorectal cancer outcomes in Ontario

BMC Medical Research Methodology

David R Urbach⁵  Nancy N Baxter¹  Rahim Moineddin³  Rinku Sutradhar⁴  Binu J Jacob² 

[1] Department of Health Policy Management Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada;Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

关键词: Instrumental variable analysis;    Propensity score analysis;    Colonoscopy;   

Others  :  1109810
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-59

 received in 2012-03-09, accepted in 2013-04-05,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The study describes the methodological challenges encountered in an observational study estimating the effectiveness of colonoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality.

Methods

Using Ontario provincial administrative data, we conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to assess CRC incidence and mortality in a group of average-risk subjects aged 50–74 years who underwent colonoscopy between 1996–2000. We created two study cohorts; unselected and restricted. The unselected cohort consists of subjects aged 50–74 years who were eligible for CRC screening and who had the same primary care physician (PCP) during the period 1996–2000 with at least two years of follow-up. PCPs are general practioners/family physicians who are the main source of health care for Ontarians. The restricted cohort was a nested sample of unselected cohort who were alive and free of CRC as on January 1, 2001 and whose PCPs had at least 10 screen-eligible patients with a colonoscopy referral rate of more than 3%. We compared the outcomes in the two study cohorts; unselected vs. restricted. We then estimated the absolute risk reduction associated with colonoscopy in preventing CRC incidence and mortality in the restricted cohort, using traditional regression analysis, propensity score analysis and instrumental variable analysis.

Results

The unselected cohort (N = 1,341,612) showed that colonoscopy was associated with an increase in CRC incidence (1.61% vs. 4.61%) and mortality (0.36% vs. 1.16%), whereas the restricted cohort (N = 1,089,998) showed that colonoscopy was associated with a reduction in CRC incidence (1.36% vs. 0.84%) and mortality (0.23% vs. 0.15%). For CRC incidence, the absolute risk reduction (ARR) associated with colonoscopy use was 0.52% in an unadjusted model, 0.53% in a multivariate logistic regression model, 0.54% in a propensity score-weighted outcome model, 0.56% in propensity score-matched model, and 0.60% using instrumental variable analysis. For CRC mortality, the ARR was 0.08% in the unadjusted model, multivariate logistic regression model and for a propensity score- weighted outcome model, 0.10% using propensity score matched model and 0.17% using the IVA model.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy use reduced the risk of CRC incidence and mortality in the restricted cohort. The study highlights the importance of appropriate selection of study subjects and use of analytic methods for the evaluation of screening methods using observational data.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Jacob et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Canadian Cancer Society/National cancer Institute of Canada: Canadian Cancer Statistics 2010. Toronto, Canada: CCS/NCIC; 2010. http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/canadian-cancer-statistics-publication/ webcite
• [2]Public Health Canada Statistics. 2010. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ncccs-cndcc/ccsrec-eng.php webcite
• [3]Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G: Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:162-168.
• [4]Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J: Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003, 124:544-560.
• [5]Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Urbach DR, Rabeneck L: Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009, 150:1-8.
• [6]Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Altenhofen L, Haug U: Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Canc Inst 2010, 102:89-95.
• [7]Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, Kliewer EV, Mahmud SM, Bernstein CN: The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010, 139:1128-1137.
• [8]Jacob B, Moineddin R, Sutradhar R, Baxter N, Urbach D: Effect of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: an instrumental variable analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2012, 76(2):355-364. Under review
• [9]Meissner HI, Breen N, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW: Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States. Canc Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2006, 15:389-394.
• [10]Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Kuntz KM: Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA 2000, 284:1954-1961.
• [11]Hassan C, Di GE, Pickhardt PJ, Zullo A, Laghi A, Kim DH: Cost effectiveness of colonoscopy, based on the appropriateness of an indication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008, 6:1231-1236.
• [12]Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, Stillman JS, O'brien MJ, Levin B: Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 2006, 130:1872-1885.
• [13]Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J: Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008, 134:1570-1595.
• [14]Jacob BJ, Baxter NN, Moineddin R, Sutradhar R, Del GL, Urbach DR: Social disparities in the use of colonoscopy by primary care physicians in Ontario. BMC Gastroenterol 2011, 11:102. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Vinden C, Schultz S, Rabeneck L: Use of bowel procedures in Ontario: ICES Atlas. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2004.
• [16]Posner MA, Ash AS, Freund KM, Moskowitz MA, Shwartz M: Comparing Standard Regression, Propensity Score Matching, and Instrumental Variables Methods for Determining the Influence of Mammography on Stage of Diagnosis. Health Serv Outcome Res Meth 2001, 2:279-290.
• [17]Connors AF Jr, Speroff T, Dawson NV, Thomas C, Harrell FE Jr, Wagner D: The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA 1996, 276:889-897.
• [18]D'Agostino RB Jr: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998, 17:2265-2281.
• [19]Newhouse JP, McClellan M: Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Publ Health 1998, 19:17-34.
• [20]McIntosh MW: Instrumental variables when evaluating screening trials: estimating the benefit of detecting cancer by screening. Stat Med 1999, 18:2775-2794.
• [21]Robles SC, Marrett LD, Clarke EA, Risch HA: An application of capture recapture methods to the estimation of completeness of cancer registration. J Clin Epidemiol 1988, 41:495-501.
• [22]Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences: Improving health care data in Ontario: ICES investigative report. Toronto: ICES; 2005.
• [23]Bice TW, Boxerman SB: A quantitative measure of continuity of care. Med Care 1977, 15:347-349.
• [24]Shortell SM: Continuity of medical care: conceptualization and measurement. Med Care 1976, 14:377-391.
• [25]Primary Care in Ontario: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) Atlas. Toronto: ICES; 2006.
• [26]Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA: Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992, 45:613-619. -619
• [27]Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987, 40:373-383.
• [28]Rubin DB: Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:757-763.
• [29]Rosenbaum P, Rubin D: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
• [30]Grzybowski M, Clements EA, Parsons L, Welch R, Tintinalli AT, Ross MA: Mortality benefit of immediate revascularization of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with contraindications to thrombolytic therapy: a propensity analysis1. JAMA 2003, 290:1891-1898.
• [31]Hogan JW, Lancaster T: Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies. Stat Meth Med Res 2004, 13:17-48.
• [32]Leslie R, Ghomrawi H: The Use of Propensity Scores and Instrumental Variable Methods to Adjust For Treatment Selection Bias. SAS Global Forum: Statistics and Data Analysis; 2008.
• [33]Kosanke J, Bergstralh E: Match one or more controls to cases using the GREEDY algorithm. Rochester, MN: Mayo Clinic College of Medicine; 2004.
• [34]Parsons LS: Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SAS (Users Group International Conference). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2001.
• [35]Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ: Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 2007, 297:278-285.
• [36]Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P, Normand SL, Streiner DL, Austin PC: Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 2005, 330:960-962.
• [37]Pisoni RL, Arrington CJ, Albert JM, Ethier J, Kimata N, Krishnan M: Facility hemodialysis vascular access use and mortality in countries participating in DOPPS: an instrumental variable analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2009, 53:475-491.
• [38]Kahn JM, Ten Have TR, Iwashyna TJ: The relationship between hospital volume and mortality in mechanical ventilation: an instrumental variable analysis. Health Serv Res 2009, 44:862-879.
• [39]Falcaro M, Povey AC, Fielder A, Nahit E, Pickles A: Estimating intervention effects in a complex multi-level smoking prevention study. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2009, 6:463-477.
• [40]Greenland S: An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol 2000, 29:722-729.
• [41]Rhodes W, Pelissier B, Gaes G, Saylor W, Camp S, Wallace S: Alternative solutions to the problem of selection bias in an analysis of federal residential drug treatment programs. Eval Rev 2001, 25:331-369.
• [42]Brooks JM, McClellan M, Wong HS: The marginal benefits of invasive treatments for acute myocardial infarction: does insurance coverage matter? Inquiry 2000, 37:75-90.
• [43]Harris KM, Remler DK: Who is the marginal patient? Understanding instrumental variables estimates of treatment effects. Health Serv Res 1998, 33:1337-1360.
• [44]Rassen JA, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Mittleman MA, Schneeweiss S: Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62(12):1226-1232.
• [45]Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ: Causal Effect of Ambulatory Specialiy Care on Mortality Following Myocardial Infarction: A comparison of Propensity Score and Instrumental Variable Analyses. Health Serv Outcome Res Meth 2001, 2:221-245.
• [46]Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR, Breen N, Seeff LC, Brown ML: Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults. Med Care 2005, 43:939-944.