Holmberg L, Duffy S W, Yen A M F, Tabár L, Vitak B, Nyström L, Frisell J
Research Oncology, 3rd floor Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Hospital, Divison of Cancer Studies, Guy's Campus, King's College London, SE1 9RT London, UK.
J Med Screen. 2009;16(2):73-80. doi: 10.1258/jms.2009.008103.
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.
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.
A Review Committee compared the original data files from W and 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.
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.
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.
描述并量化瑞典W-E试验中病例数和乳腺癌死亡数与瑞典综述委员会(OVC)总结之间的差异,并研究二级预防试验相关的方法学问题。
乳腺钼靶筛查W-E试验的研究人群纳入了瑞典所有随机乳腺钼靶筛查试验的首个(W县和E县)及第二个(E县)OVC总结中。OVC和W-E试验在病例定义和死亡原因判定上采用了不同标准。
一个审查委员会比较了W县和E县以及首个和第二个OVC的原始数据文件。对所有不一致的病例或乳腺癌死亡单独确定差异原因。
在W-E试验或OVC纳入的2615例病例中,有478例(18%)存在分歧。在这些分歧中,82%是由于纳入/排除标准,18%是由于在死亡原因或确定时的生命状态方面存在分歧。对于E县,OVC的纳入规则和基于登记处确定死亡原因(第二个OVC)而非个体病例审查(W-E试验和首个OVC)导致筛查效果估计值降低,但对于W县,原始试验与OVC之间的差异较小。
乳腺钼靶筛查可降低乳腺癌死亡率这一结论仍然可靠。分歧主要是由于研究设计问题,而关于死亡原因的分歧占少数。当二次研究未遵循一次研究项目的方案时,应调查并报告此类设计差异的后果。试验的登记链接可增加随访信息。通过对病例状态和结局状态(如死亡原因判定)进行个体监测,可提高规模较小试验的精确性。