Does the source of death information affect cancer screening efficacy results? A study of the use of mortality review versus death certificates in four randomized trials

Author:

Doria-Rose V Paul1,Marcus Pamela M2,Miller Anthony B3,Bergstralh Eric J4,Mandel Jack S3,Tockman Melvyn S5,Prorok Philip C2

Affiliation:

1. Biometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA, , Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Center for Cancer Training, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

2. Biometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

3. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

4. Mayo Clinic, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN, USA

5. Risk Assessment, Detection, and Intervention Program, Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA

Abstract

Background Often in randomized controlled trials of cancer screening, cause of death is determined by a mortality review committee. However, little is known regarding how findings from mortality review compare to those from death certificates alone. Purpose To examine the results of four different U. S. trials of cancer screening when death certificate data only were used, as compared to results using all available mortality review information. Methods Trials included were the Health Insurance Plan of New York breast screening trial (HIP), the Minnesota trial of fecal occult blood testing, and the Johns Hopkins and Mayo Lung Projects, which each examined chest x-ray and sputum cytology. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Cohen’s kappa for death certificates were calculated for all arms of all trials. Separate intention-to-screen analyses were conducted for each trial using cause of death information from either death certificates alone or full mortality review data. Results Generally there was excellent agreement between the death certificates and the mortality review committee as to the underlying cause of death (kappa >0.85 in all cases); death certificate agreement was similar between arms in all trials. Modest changes in the screening effectiveness estimates were observed when mortality review information was utilized, ranging from a 9% decrease to a 2% increase in the calculated mortality rate ratios. However, in one instance (HIP) a statistically significant benefit of screening was observed when mortality review committee data were used (rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62— 0.95) but not when death certificate data were used (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65—1.03). Limitations Although considered to be the gold standard, even carefully conducted mortality review may result in errors in cause of death assignment. Conclusions For each trial, results were similar regardless of the source of cause of death information. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 69—77. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3