Abstract
AbstractIf assessment of cancer screening involved nothing more than calculating the intermediate and definitive outcomes described in previous chapters, there would be little need for this primer. The challenging aspect is the interpretation of changes in outcomes that accompany cancer screening. The three screening phenomena, lead time, length-weighted sampling, and overdiagnosis, are responsible for much of that challenge. Chapter 5 presents how improvements in intermediate outcomes can occur even when cancer screening does not impact definitive outcomes, and examples and figures are presented to reinforce concepts. Assignment of cause of death is discussed in Chap. 5, and two phenomena that can affect the accuracy of cause of death, sticking diagnosis and slippery linkage, are presented.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference7 articles.
1. Zaorsky NG, Zhang Y, Tuanquin L, Bluethmann SM, Park HS, Chinchilli VM. Suicide among cancer patients. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):207.
2. Smith Sehdev AE, Hutchins GM. Problems with proper completion and accuracy of the cause-of-death statement. Arch Int Med. 2001;161(2):277–84.
3. Revisions of the US standard certificates and reports [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. c [updated 2017; cited 2019 Oct 22]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/revisions-of-the-us-standard-certificates-and-reports.htm
4. Marcus PM, Gareen IF, Miller AB, Rosenbaum J, Keating K, Aberle DR, Berg CD. The national lung screening trial’s endpoint verification process: determining the cause of death. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(6):834–40.
5. Marcus PM, Doria-Rose VP, Gareen IF, Brewer B, Clingan K, Keating K, Rosenbaum J, Rozjabek HM, Rathmell J, Sicks J, Miller AB. Did death certificates and a death review process agree on lung cancer cause of death in the National Lung Screening Trial? Clin Trials. 2016;13(4):434–8.