Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-08-2011 | COMMENTARY

Residual confounding after adjustment for age: a minor issue in breast cancer screening effectiveness

Authors: Guido van Schoor, Ellen Paap, Mireille J. M. Broeders, André L. M. Verbeek

Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology | Issue 8/2011

Abstract

Residual confounding, after adjustment for age, is the major criticism of observational studies on breast cancer screening effectiveness. We developed realistic scenarios for the prevalence and strength of risk factors on screened and not screened groups, and explored the impact of residual confounding bias. Our results demonstrate that residual confounding bias is a minor issue in screening programme evaluations.

Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders MJM, Codd MB, de Koning HJ, Fracheboud J, et al. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: Current policies, administration and guidelines. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27:735–42.PubMedCrossRef

Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

Cornfield J, Haenszel W, Hammond EC, Lilienfeld AM, Shimkin MB, Wynder EL. Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:173–203.PubMed

Schlesselman JJ. Assessing effects of confounding variables. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;108:3–8.PubMed

Greenland S. Basic methods for sensitivity analysis of biases. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25:1107–16.PubMedCrossRef

Fielder HM, Warwick J, Brook D, Gower-Thomas K, Cuzick J, Monypenny I, et al. A case-control study to estimate the impact on breast cancer death of the breast screening programme in Wales. J Med Screen. 2004;11:194–8.PubMedCrossRef

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;48:948–55.PubMedCrossRef

Puliti D, Miccinesi G, Collina N, De Lisi V, Federico M, Ferretti S, et al. Effectiveness of service screening: a case-control study to assess breast cancer mortality reduction. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:423–7.PubMedCrossRef

Roder D, Houssami N, Farshid G, Gill G, Luke C, Downey P, et al. Population screening and intensity of screening are associated with reduced breast cancer mortality: evidence of efficacy of mammography screening in Australia. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108:409–16.PubMedCrossRef

10.

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;98:206–9.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Paap E, Holland R, den Heeten GJ, van Schoor G, Botterweck AA, Verbeek ALM, et al. A remarkable reduction of breast cancer deaths in screened versus unscreened women: a case-referent study. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:1569–73.PubMedCrossRef

12.

van Schoor G, Moss SM, Otten JDM, Donders R, Paap E, den Heeten GJ, et al. Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:910–4.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:680–91.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Connor RJ, Prorok PC, Weed DL. The case-control design and the assessment of the efficacy of cancer screening. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1215–21.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Weiss NS, Rossing MA. Healthy screening bias in epidemiologic studies of cancer incidence. Epidemiology. 1996;7:319–22.PubMed

17.

Hernán MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15:615–25.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Duffy SW, Cuzick J, Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen THH, Yen MF, et al. Correcting for non-compliance bias in case-control studies to evaluate cancer screening programmes. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2002;51(2):235–43.CrossRef

19.

Steenland K, Greenland S. Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis and Bayesian analysis of smoking as an unmeasured confounder in a study of silica and lung cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:384–92.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Residual confounding after adjustment for age: a minor issue in breast cancer screening effectiveness
Authors: Guido van Schoor
Ellen Paap
Mireille J. M. Broeders
André L. M. Verbeek
Publication date: 01-08-2011
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology / Issue 8/2011
Print ISSN: 0393-2990
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7284
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-011-9584-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Residual confounding after adjustment for age: a minor issue in breast cancer screening effectiveness

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2011

Dairy products and its association with incidence of cardiovascular disease: the Malmö diet and cancer cohort

North African refugees, fleeing the fighting, admitted to Sicilian hospitals from January 1st to June 10th, 2011

Doubling in the use of thyroid hormone replacement therapy in Denmark: association to iodization of salt?

Categories of glucose tolerance and continuous glycemic measures and mortality

Obesity but not overweight is associated with increased mortality risk

Recreational physical activity and risk of head and neck cancer: a pooled analysis within the international head and neck cancer epidemiology (INHANCE) Consortium