Quantifying lead-time bias in risk factor studies of cancer through simulation

Quantifying lead-time bias in risk factor studies of cancer through simulation Introduction</h5> Rarely if ever do studies of risk factors for chronic disease take into account bias from screening, even though many behavioral risk factors may be associated with use of screening. Weiss [1] and Joffe [2] describe some ways in which screening modifies the observed risk-factor-disease associations and complicates interpretation of results. Lead time, the interval by which disease diagnosis is advanced by screening [3–9] , has rarely been recognized to bias such comparisons of incidence or mortality [10] , and when it has, it has been approached heuristically rather than analytically [11] . Differential ascertainment can occur within a study between subjects who are screened routinely and their counterparts who are not, regardless of screening efficacy. Because the factors that drive the differential ascertainment act before the data collection period, conventional methods for confounding adjustment cannot adequately address such selection bias. For these reasons, lead time–biased case ascertainment (LTBCA) may be more widespread than generally recognized and also problematic to control, thus motivating new methods.</P>This bias can affect any observational study type, including a cohort study in which a disease risk factor is also associated with screening, for example, a study of physical activity and prostate cancer http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Annals of Epidemiology Elsevier

Quantifying lead-time bias in risk factor studies of cancer through simulation

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/quantifying-lead-time-bias-in-risk-factor-studies-of-cancer-through-jTYcGr7cQ9
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc.
ISSN
1047-2797
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.07.021
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Introduction</h5> Rarely if ever do studies of risk factors for chronic disease take into account bias from screening, even though many behavioral risk factors may be associated with use of screening. Weiss [1] and Joffe [2] describe some ways in which screening modifies the observed risk-factor-disease associations and complicates interpretation of results. Lead time, the interval by which disease diagnosis is advanced by screening [3–9] , has rarely been recognized to bias such comparisons of incidence or mortality [10] , and when it has, it has been approached heuristically rather than analytically [11] . Differential ascertainment can occur within a study between subjects who are screened routinely and their counterparts who are not, regardless of screening efficacy. Because the factors that drive the differential ascertainment act before the data collection period, conventional methods for confounding adjustment cannot adequately address such selection bias. For these reasons, lead time–biased case ascertainment (LTBCA) may be more widespread than generally recognized and also problematic to control, thus motivating new methods.</P>This bias can affect any observational study type, including a cohort study in which a disease risk factor is also associated with screening, for example, a study of physical activity and prostate cancer

Journal

Annals of EpidemiologyElsevier

Published: Nov 1, 2013

References

  • Case-control studies of screening
    Moss, S.M.
  • Computational methods in medical decision making: to screen or not to screen?
    Kafadar, K.; Prorok, P.C.
  • A novel form of ascertainment bias in case-control studies of cancer screening
    Church, T.R.
  • Cancer screening guidelines
    Zoorob, R.; Anderson, R.; Cefalu, C.; Sidani, M.
  • Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study
    Schroder, F.H.; Hugosson, J.; Roobol, M.J.; Tammela, T.L.; Ciatto, S.; Nelen, V.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off