Assessing lead time bias due to mammography screening on estimates of loss in life expectancy

Breast Cancer Research

Therese M.-L. Andersson¹  Alessandro Gasparini¹  Keith Humphreys¹  Elisavet Syriopoulou¹ 

[1] Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden;

关键词: Lead time bias;    Loss in life expectancy;    Mammography screening;    Simulation study;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13058-022-01505-3

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundAn increasingly popular measure for summarising cancer prognosis is the loss in life expectancy (LLE), i.e. the reduction in life expectancy following a cancer diagnosis. The proportion of life lost (PLL) can also be derived, improving comparability across age groups as LLE is highly age-dependent. LLE and PLL are often used to assess the impact of cancer over the remaining lifespan and across groups (e.g. socioeconomic groups). However, in the presence of screening, it is unclear whether part of the differences across population groups could be attributed to lead time bias. Lead time is the extra time added due to early diagnosis, that is, the time from tumour detection through screening to the time that cancer would have been diagnosed symptomatically. It leads to artificially inflated survival estimates even when there are no real survival improvements.MethodsIn this paper, we used a simulation-based approach to assess the impact of lead time due to mammography screening on the estimation of LLE and PLL in breast cancer patients. A natural history model developed in a Swedish setting was used to simulate the growth of breast cancer tumours and age at symptomatic detection. Then, a screening programme similar to current guidelines in Sweden was imposed, with individuals aged 40–74 invited to participate every second year; different scenarios were considered for screening sensitivity and attendance. To isolate the lead time bias of screening, we assumed that screening does not affect the actual time of death. Finally, estimates of LLE and PLL were obtained in the absence and presence of screening, and their difference was used to derive the lead time bias.ResultsThe largest absolute bias for LLE was 0.61 years for a high screening sensitivity scenario and assuming perfect screening attendance. The absolute bias was reduced to 0.46 years when the perfect attendance assumption was relaxed to allow for imperfect attendance across screening visits. Bias was also present for the PLL estimates.ConclusionsThe results of the analysis suggested that lead time bias influences LLE and PLL metrics, thus requiring special consideration when interpreting comparisons across calendar time or population groups.

【 授权许可】

CC BY