Tailoring the message with selective reporting

Tailoring the message with selective reporting European Journal of Epidemiology (2018) 33:773 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0416-6(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) CORRESPONDENCE 1,2 1,2,3 4,5 • • Magnus Løberg Mette Kalager Geir Hoff Received: 15 May 2018 / Accepted: 25 May 2018 / Published online: 30 May 2018 Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018 We have read the article by Niedermaier et al. [1] with however, there was no difference in the long-term great interest. This is a modelling study aiming to estimate screening effect between the two groups: The incidence of the sensitivity and specificity of a combined strategy of colorectal cancer was most reduced in the sigmoidoscopy sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) only group, while the mortality of colorectal cancer was screening to detect colorectal neoplasia. To inform the most reduced in the combined strategy group. model, the authors performed a meta-analysis of studies We find it worrying that the authors selectively have that have evaluated the site-specific FIT sensitivity, with referred to the NORCCAP findings supporting their view. colonoscopy as the gold standard. They have ignored to mention that there was no difference An obvious limitation with sigmoidoscopy screening is between the groups in the detection rates of any adenoma, the low sensitivity in the proximal colon, both for early advanced adenoma and cancer at screening, and that the detection of cancer, and for detection and removal of intention-to-screen analysis showed that colorectal cancer adenomas. A way to mitigate this limitation, could be to incidence was reduced in the sigmoidoscopy only group, add a FIT to the sigmoidoscopy screening, and thus try to but not in the combined strategy group. increase the detection rate of proximal cancers and ade- We are surprised to see that Niedermaier et al. put more nomas through increased referral to follow-up faith in their model than a large, well-designed randomized colonoscopy. controlled trial with sufficient follow-up to capture patient The idea described above is not new: In the Norwegian important outcomes, such as colorectal cancer incidence Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial [2], indi- and mortality. This is in stark contrast to the GRADE viduals in the screening arm were randomized to screening system [3], where evidence from randomized trials are with sigmoidoscopy or a combination of sigmoidoscopy ranked above observational studies, and where models are and a once-only FIT (combined strategy). Surprisingly, the typically considered as low-quality evidence. combined strategy was less successful than anticipated, even though attendance rate was comparable in the two groups (combined strategy 61%, sigmoidoscopy only References 65%). During screening and follow-up colonoscopy, there were no differences in detection of any adenoma, advanced 1. Niedermaier T, Weigl K, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H. Diagnostic adenoma or cancer between the groups. More importantly, performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening: meta-analysis and modeling. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(6):481–93. & Magnus Løberg 2. Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, et al. Effect of flexible magnus.loberg@medisin.uio.no sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:606–15. Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health 3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso- and Society, University of Oslo, Postbox 1089, Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality 0318 Blindern, Oslo, Norway of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. Department of Transplantation Medicine and KG Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Center, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Journal of Epidemiology Springer Journals

Tailoring the message with selective reporting

Free
1 page

Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/springer_journal/tailoring-the-message-with-selective-reporting-MNnTuQtNfl
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Epidemiology; Public Health; Infectious Diseases; Cardiology; Oncology
ISSN
0393-2990
eISSN
1573-7284
D.O.I.
10.1007/s10654-018-0416-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

European Journal of Epidemiology (2018) 33:773 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0416-6(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) CORRESPONDENCE 1,2 1,2,3 4,5 • • Magnus Løberg Mette Kalager Geir Hoff Received: 15 May 2018 / Accepted: 25 May 2018 / Published online: 30 May 2018 Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018 We have read the article by Niedermaier et al. [1] with however, there was no difference in the long-term great interest. This is a modelling study aiming to estimate screening effect between the two groups: The incidence of the sensitivity and specificity of a combined strategy of colorectal cancer was most reduced in the sigmoidoscopy sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) only group, while the mortality of colorectal cancer was screening to detect colorectal neoplasia. To inform the most reduced in the combined strategy group. model, the authors performed a meta-analysis of studies We find it worrying that the authors selectively have that have evaluated the site-specific FIT sensitivity, with referred to the NORCCAP findings supporting their view. colonoscopy as the gold standard. They have ignored to mention that there was no difference An obvious limitation with sigmoidoscopy screening is between the groups in the detection rates of any adenoma, the low sensitivity in the proximal colon, both for early advanced adenoma and cancer at screening, and that the detection of cancer, and for detection and removal of intention-to-screen analysis showed that colorectal cancer adenomas. A way to mitigate this limitation, could be to incidence was reduced in the sigmoidoscopy only group, add a FIT to the sigmoidoscopy screening, and thus try to but not in the combined strategy group. increase the detection rate of proximal cancers and ade- We are surprised to see that Niedermaier et al. put more nomas through increased referral to follow-up faith in their model than a large, well-designed randomized colonoscopy. controlled trial with sufficient follow-up to capture patient The idea described above is not new: In the Norwegian important outcomes, such as colorectal cancer incidence Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial [2], indi- and mortality. This is in stark contrast to the GRADE viduals in the screening arm were randomized to screening system [3], where evidence from randomized trials are with sigmoidoscopy or a combination of sigmoidoscopy ranked above observational studies, and where models are and a once-only FIT (combined strategy). Surprisingly, the typically considered as low-quality evidence. combined strategy was less successful than anticipated, even though attendance rate was comparable in the two groups (combined strategy 61%, sigmoidoscopy only References 65%). During screening and follow-up colonoscopy, there were no differences in detection of any adenoma, advanced 1. Niedermaier T, Weigl K, Hoffmeister M, Brenner H. Diagnostic adenoma or cancer between the groups. More importantly, performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening: meta-analysis and modeling. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(6):481–93. & Magnus Løberg 2. Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, et al. Effect of flexible magnus.loberg@medisin.uio.no sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:606–15. Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health 3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso- and Society, University of Oslo, Postbox 1089, Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality 0318 Blindern, Oslo, Norway of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. Department of Transplantation Medicine and KG Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Center, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway

Journal

European Journal of EpidemiologySpringer Journals

Published: May 30, 2018

References

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