Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening

Ruth Etzioni, Roman Gulati, Leslie Mallinger, Jeanne Mandelblatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

81 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Knowledge of the likelihood that a screening-detected case of cancer has been overdiagnosed is vitally important to make treatment decisions and develop screening policy. An overdiagnosed case is an excess case detected by screening. Estimates of the frequency of overdiagnosis in breast and prostate cancer screening vary greatly across studies. This article identifies features of overdiagnosis studies that influence results and shows their effect by using published research. First, different ways to define and measure overdiagnosis are considered. Second, contextual features and how they affect overdiagnosis estimates are examined. Third, the effect of estimation approach is discussed. Many studies use excess incidence under screening as a proxy for overdiagnosis. Others use statistical models to make inferences about lead time or natural history and then derive the corresponding fraction of cases that are overdiagnosed. This article concludes with questions that readers of overdiagnosis studies can use to evaluate the validity and relevance of published estimates and recommends that authors of studies quantifying overdiagnosis provide information about these features.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)831-838
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of internal medicine
Volume158
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 4 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Early Detection of Cancer
Prostatic Neoplasms
Breast Neoplasms
Medical Overuse
Proxy
Statistical Models
Natural History
Incidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening. / Etzioni, Ruth; Gulati, Roman; Mallinger, Leslie; Mandelblatt, Jeanne.

In: Annals of internal medicine, Vol. 158, No. 11, 04.06.2013, p. 831-838.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Etzioni, Ruth ; Gulati, Roman ; Mallinger, Leslie ; Mandelblatt, Jeanne. / Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening. In: Annals of internal medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 158, No. 11. pp. 831-838.
@article{23771a558c914b71a59643aecb509d16,
title = "Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening",
abstract = "Knowledge of the likelihood that a screening-detected case of cancer has been overdiagnosed is vitally important to make treatment decisions and develop screening policy. An overdiagnosed case is an excess case detected by screening. Estimates of the frequency of overdiagnosis in breast and prostate cancer screening vary greatly across studies. This article identifies features of overdiagnosis studies that influence results and shows their effect by using published research. First, different ways to define and measure overdiagnosis are considered. Second, contextual features and how they affect overdiagnosis estimates are examined. Third, the effect of estimation approach is discussed. Many studies use excess incidence under screening as a proxy for overdiagnosis. Others use statistical models to make inferences about lead time or natural history and then derive the corresponding fraction of cases that are overdiagnosed. This article concludes with questions that readers of overdiagnosis studies can use to evaluate the validity and relevance of published estimates and recommends that authors of studies quantifying overdiagnosis provide information about these features.",
author = "Ruth Etzioni and Roman Gulati and Leslie Mallinger and Jeanne Mandelblatt",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
day = "4",
doi = "10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "158",
pages = "831--838",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening

AU - Etzioni, Ruth

AU - Gulati, Roman

AU - Mallinger, Leslie

AU - Mandelblatt, Jeanne

PY - 2013/6/4

Y1 - 2013/6/4

N2 - Knowledge of the likelihood that a screening-detected case of cancer has been overdiagnosed is vitally important to make treatment decisions and develop screening policy. An overdiagnosed case is an excess case detected by screening. Estimates of the frequency of overdiagnosis in breast and prostate cancer screening vary greatly across studies. This article identifies features of overdiagnosis studies that influence results and shows their effect by using published research. First, different ways to define and measure overdiagnosis are considered. Second, contextual features and how they affect overdiagnosis estimates are examined. Third, the effect of estimation approach is discussed. Many studies use excess incidence under screening as a proxy for overdiagnosis. Others use statistical models to make inferences about lead time or natural history and then derive the corresponding fraction of cases that are overdiagnosed. This article concludes with questions that readers of overdiagnosis studies can use to evaluate the validity and relevance of published estimates and recommends that authors of studies quantifying overdiagnosis provide information about these features.

AB - Knowledge of the likelihood that a screening-detected case of cancer has been overdiagnosed is vitally important to make treatment decisions and develop screening policy. An overdiagnosed case is an excess case detected by screening. Estimates of the frequency of overdiagnosis in breast and prostate cancer screening vary greatly across studies. This article identifies features of overdiagnosis studies that influence results and shows their effect by using published research. First, different ways to define and measure overdiagnosis are considered. Second, contextual features and how they affect overdiagnosis estimates are examined. Third, the effect of estimation approach is discussed. Many studies use excess incidence under screening as a proxy for overdiagnosis. Others use statistical models to make inferences about lead time or natural history and then derive the corresponding fraction of cases that are overdiagnosed. This article concludes with questions that readers of overdiagnosis studies can use to evaluate the validity and relevance of published estimates and recommends that authors of studies quantifying overdiagnosis provide information about these features.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878716848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878716848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00008

DO - 10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00008

M3 - Article

C2 - 23732716

AN - SCOPUS:84878716848

VL - 158

SP - 831

EP - 838

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 11

ER -