Differences in endpoints between the Swedish W-E (two county) trial of mammographic screening and the Swedish overview

Methodological consequences

Lars Holmberg, S. W. Duffy, A. M F Yen, L. Tabár R, B. Vitak, L. Nyström, J. Frisell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To characterize and quantify the differences in the number of cases and breast cancer deaths in the Swedish W-E Trial compared with the Swedish Overview Committee (OVC) summaries and to study methodological issues related to trials in secondary prevention. Setting: The study population of the W-E Trial of mammography screening was included in the first (W and E county) and the second (E-county) OVC summary of all Swedish randomized mammography screening trials. The OVC and the W-E Trial used different criteria for case definition and causes of death determination. Method: A Review Committee compared the original data files fromWand E county and the first and second OVC. The reason for a discrepancy was determined individually for all non-concordant cases or breast cancer deaths. Results: Of the 2615 cases included by the W-E Trial or the OVC, there were 478 (18%) disagreements. Of the disagreements 82% were due to inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 18% to disagreement with respect to cause of death or vital status at ascertainment. For E-County, the OVC inclusion rules and register based determination of cause of death (second OVC) rather than individual case review (W-E Trial and 1st OVC) resulted in a reduction of the estimate of the effect of screening, but for W-County the difference between the original trial and the OVC was modest. Conclusions: The conclusion that invitation to mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality remains robust. Disagreements were mainly due to study design issues, while disagreements about cause of death were a minority. When secondary research does not adhere to the protocols of the primary research projects, the consequences of such design differences should be investigated and reported. Register linkage of trials can add follow-up information. The precision of trials with modest size is enhanced by individual monitoring of case status and outcome status such as determination of cause of death.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)73-80
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Medical Screening
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cause of Death
Mammography
Breast Neoplasms
Information Storage and Retrieval
Advisory Committees
Secondary Prevention
Research
Mortality
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Differences in endpoints between the Swedish W-E (two county) trial of mammographic screening and the Swedish overview : Methodological consequences. / Holmberg, Lars; Duffy, S. W.; Yen, A. M F; Tabár R, L.; Vitak, B.; Nyström, L.; Frisell, J.

In: Journal of Medical Screening, Vol. 16, No. 2, 06.2009, p. 73-80.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Holmberg, Lars ; Duffy, S. W. ; Yen, A. M F ; Tabár R, L. ; Vitak, B. ; Nyström, L. ; Frisell, J. / Differences in endpoints between the Swedish W-E (two county) trial of mammographic screening and the Swedish overview : Methodological consequences. In: Journal of Medical Screening. 2009 ; Vol. 16, No. 2. pp. 73-80.
@article{3fada06cbddd4da59501b12ce30787e4,
title = "Differences in endpoints between the Swedish W-E (two county) trial of mammographic screening and the Swedish overview: Methodological consequences",
abstract = "Objectives: To characterize and quantify the differences in the number of cases and breast cancer deaths in the Swedish W-E Trial compared with the Swedish Overview Committee (OVC) summaries and to study methodological issues related to trials in secondary prevention. Setting: The study population of the W-E Trial of mammography screening was included in the first (W and E county) and the second (E-county) OVC summary of all Swedish randomized mammography screening trials. The OVC and the W-E Trial used different criteria for case definition and causes of death determination. Method: A Review Committee compared the original data files fromWand E county and the first and second OVC. The reason for a discrepancy was determined individually for all non-concordant cases or breast cancer deaths. Results: Of the 2615 cases included by the W-E Trial or the OVC, there were 478 (18{\%}) disagreements. Of the disagreements 82{\%} were due to inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 18{\%} to disagreement with respect to cause of death or vital status at ascertainment. For E-County, the OVC inclusion rules and register based determination of cause of death (second OVC) rather than individual case review (W-E Trial and 1st OVC) resulted in a reduction of the estimate of the effect of screening, but for W-County the difference between the original trial and the OVC was modest. Conclusions: The conclusion that invitation to mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality remains robust. Disagreements were mainly due to study design issues, while disagreements about cause of death were a minority. When secondary research does not adhere to the protocols of the primary research projects, the consequences of such design differences should be investigated and reported. Register linkage of trials can add follow-up information. The precision of trials with modest size is enhanced by individual monitoring of case status and outcome status such as determination of cause of death.",
author = "Lars Holmberg and Duffy, {S. W.} and Yen, {A. M F} and {Tab{\'a}r R}, L. and B. Vitak and L. Nystr{\"o}m and J. Frisell",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1258/jms.2009.008103",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "73--80",
journal = "Journal of Medical Screening",
issn = "0969-1413",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in endpoints between the Swedish W-E (two county) trial of mammographic screening and the Swedish overview

T2 - Methodological consequences

AU - Holmberg, Lars

AU - Duffy, S. W.

AU - Yen, A. M F

AU - Tabár R, L.

AU - Vitak, B.

AU - Nyström, L.

AU - Frisell, J.

PY - 2009/6

Y1 - 2009/6

N2 - Objectives: To characterize and quantify the differences in the number of cases and breast cancer deaths in the Swedish W-E Trial compared with the Swedish Overview Committee (OVC) summaries and to study methodological issues related to trials in secondary prevention. Setting: The study population of the W-E Trial of mammography screening was included in the first (W and E county) and the second (E-county) OVC summary of all Swedish randomized mammography screening trials. The OVC and the W-E Trial used different criteria for case definition and causes of death determination. Method: A Review Committee compared the original data files fromWand E county and the first and second OVC. The reason for a discrepancy was determined individually for all non-concordant cases or breast cancer deaths. Results: Of the 2615 cases included by the W-E Trial or the OVC, there were 478 (18%) disagreements. Of the disagreements 82% were due to inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 18% to disagreement with respect to cause of death or vital status at ascertainment. For E-County, the OVC inclusion rules and register based determination of cause of death (second OVC) rather than individual case review (W-E Trial and 1st OVC) resulted in a reduction of the estimate of the effect of screening, but for W-County the difference between the original trial and the OVC was modest. Conclusions: The conclusion that invitation to mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality remains robust. Disagreements were mainly due to study design issues, while disagreements about cause of death were a minority. When secondary research does not adhere to the protocols of the primary research projects, the consequences of such design differences should be investigated and reported. Register linkage of trials can add follow-up information. The precision of trials with modest size is enhanced by individual monitoring of case status and outcome status such as determination of cause of death.

AB - Objectives: To characterize and quantify the differences in the number of cases and breast cancer deaths in the Swedish W-E Trial compared with the Swedish Overview Committee (OVC) summaries and to study methodological issues related to trials in secondary prevention. Setting: The study population of the W-E Trial of mammography screening was included in the first (W and E county) and the second (E-county) OVC summary of all Swedish randomized mammography screening trials. The OVC and the W-E Trial used different criteria for case definition and causes of death determination. Method: A Review Committee compared the original data files fromWand E county and the first and second OVC. The reason for a discrepancy was determined individually for all non-concordant cases or breast cancer deaths. Results: Of the 2615 cases included by the W-E Trial or the OVC, there were 478 (18%) disagreements. Of the disagreements 82% were due to inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 18% to disagreement with respect to cause of death or vital status at ascertainment. For E-County, the OVC inclusion rules and register based determination of cause of death (second OVC) rather than individual case review (W-E Trial and 1st OVC) resulted in a reduction of the estimate of the effect of screening, but for W-County the difference between the original trial and the OVC was modest. Conclusions: The conclusion that invitation to mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality remains robust. Disagreements were mainly due to study design issues, while disagreements about cause of death were a minority. When secondary research does not adhere to the protocols of the primary research projects, the consequences of such design differences should be investigated and reported. Register linkage of trials can add follow-up information. The precision of trials with modest size is enhanced by individual monitoring of case status and outcome status such as determination of cause of death.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650085274&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67650085274&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1258/jms.2009.008103

DO - 10.1258/jms.2009.008103

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 73

EP - 80

JO - Journal of Medical Screening

JF - Journal of Medical Screening

SN - 0969-1413

IS - 2

ER -