Recognizing the Limitations of Cancer Overdiagnosis Studies

A First Step Towards Overcoming Them

Ruth Etzioni, Roman Gulati

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Numerous studies have attempted to quantify the number of breast cancers that would never have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Unfortunately, results are highly variable across studies and there is considerable disagreement about both the frequency of overdiagnosis and the validity of different methodologic approaches. In this Commentary, we review limitations of the two major approaches used in existing studies. Studies that use excess incidence as a proxy for overdiagnosis require a valid estimate of incidence in the absence of screening and sufficient follow-up to ensure the excess excludes relevant (ie, nonoverdiagnosed) cancers detected early. The requirement of sufficient follow-up applies to both population studies and clinical trials, but only certain clinical trial designs have the potential to yield unbiased results. Studies that model disease natural history to infer overdiagnosis must, in addition, examine whether their models produce valid estimates in the presence of nonprogressive cases. In this setting, limited follow-up could lead to a lack of identifiability of the parameters needed to accurately infer overdiagnosis. In a polarized research community, the excess incidence and modeling approaches are generally viewed as competitors, but we argue that they are complementary, with models being more complex but having greater potential to inform about disease natural history and the outcomes of candidate screening policies. Rather than arguing why one approach should be preferred to another, investigators should focus on developing studies that generate reliable estimates of overdiagnosis. Recognizing that both approaches have limitations, which existing studies rarely overcome, is a first step towards reconciling methodologic perspectives and achieving consensus about the real magnitude of the overdiagnosis problem.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberdjv345
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume108
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Natural History
Incidence
Clinical Trials
Proxy
Medical Overuse
Research Personnel
Breast Neoplasms
Research
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Recognizing the Limitations of Cancer Overdiagnosis Studies : A First Step Towards Overcoming Them. / Etzioni, Ruth; Gulati, Roman.

In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 108, No. 3, djv345, 01.03.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{564233812e1646b5935f4715b83bd5d1,
title = "Recognizing the Limitations of Cancer Overdiagnosis Studies: A First Step Towards Overcoming Them",
abstract = "Numerous studies have attempted to quantify the number of breast cancers that would never have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Unfortunately, results are highly variable across studies and there is considerable disagreement about both the frequency of overdiagnosis and the validity of different methodologic approaches. In this Commentary, we review limitations of the two major approaches used in existing studies. Studies that use excess incidence as a proxy for overdiagnosis require a valid estimate of incidence in the absence of screening and sufficient follow-up to ensure the excess excludes relevant (ie, nonoverdiagnosed) cancers detected early. The requirement of sufficient follow-up applies to both population studies and clinical trials, but only certain clinical trial designs have the potential to yield unbiased results. Studies that model disease natural history to infer overdiagnosis must, in addition, examine whether their models produce valid estimates in the presence of nonprogressive cases. In this setting, limited follow-up could lead to a lack of identifiability of the parameters needed to accurately infer overdiagnosis. In a polarized research community, the excess incidence and modeling approaches are generally viewed as competitors, but we argue that they are complementary, with models being more complex but having greater potential to inform about disease natural history and the outcomes of candidate screening policies. Rather than arguing why one approach should be preferred to another, investigators should focus on developing studies that generate reliable estimates of overdiagnosis. Recognizing that both approaches have limitations, which existing studies rarely overcome, is a first step towards reconciling methodologic perspectives and achieving consensus about the real magnitude of the overdiagnosis problem.",
author = "Ruth Etzioni and Roman Gulati",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/jnci/djv345",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "108",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recognizing the Limitations of Cancer Overdiagnosis Studies

T2 - A First Step Towards Overcoming Them

AU - Etzioni, Ruth

AU - Gulati, Roman

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Numerous studies have attempted to quantify the number of breast cancers that would never have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Unfortunately, results are highly variable across studies and there is considerable disagreement about both the frequency of overdiagnosis and the validity of different methodologic approaches. In this Commentary, we review limitations of the two major approaches used in existing studies. Studies that use excess incidence as a proxy for overdiagnosis require a valid estimate of incidence in the absence of screening and sufficient follow-up to ensure the excess excludes relevant (ie, nonoverdiagnosed) cancers detected early. The requirement of sufficient follow-up applies to both population studies and clinical trials, but only certain clinical trial designs have the potential to yield unbiased results. Studies that model disease natural history to infer overdiagnosis must, in addition, examine whether their models produce valid estimates in the presence of nonprogressive cases. In this setting, limited follow-up could lead to a lack of identifiability of the parameters needed to accurately infer overdiagnosis. In a polarized research community, the excess incidence and modeling approaches are generally viewed as competitors, but we argue that they are complementary, with models being more complex but having greater potential to inform about disease natural history and the outcomes of candidate screening policies. Rather than arguing why one approach should be preferred to another, investigators should focus on developing studies that generate reliable estimates of overdiagnosis. Recognizing that both approaches have limitations, which existing studies rarely overcome, is a first step towards reconciling methodologic perspectives and achieving consensus about the real magnitude of the overdiagnosis problem.

AB - Numerous studies have attempted to quantify the number of breast cancers that would never have been diagnosed in the absence of screening. Unfortunately, results are highly variable across studies and there is considerable disagreement about both the frequency of overdiagnosis and the validity of different methodologic approaches. In this Commentary, we review limitations of the two major approaches used in existing studies. Studies that use excess incidence as a proxy for overdiagnosis require a valid estimate of incidence in the absence of screening and sufficient follow-up to ensure the excess excludes relevant (ie, nonoverdiagnosed) cancers detected early. The requirement of sufficient follow-up applies to both population studies and clinical trials, but only certain clinical trial designs have the potential to yield unbiased results. Studies that model disease natural history to infer overdiagnosis must, in addition, examine whether their models produce valid estimates in the presence of nonprogressive cases. In this setting, limited follow-up could lead to a lack of identifiability of the parameters needed to accurately infer overdiagnosis. In a polarized research community, the excess incidence and modeling approaches are generally viewed as competitors, but we argue that they are complementary, with models being more complex but having greater potential to inform about disease natural history and the outcomes of candidate screening policies. Rather than arguing why one approach should be preferred to another, investigators should focus on developing studies that generate reliable estimates of overdiagnosis. Recognizing that both approaches have limitations, which existing studies rarely overcome, is a first step towards reconciling methodologic perspectives and achieving consensus about the real magnitude of the overdiagnosis problem.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962503131&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962503131&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jnci/djv345

DO - 10.1093/jnci/djv345

M3 - Review article

VL - 108

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 3

M1 - djv345

ER -