Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157:957-961.
Copyright © 2003 by Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
COMMENTARIES |
Adjusting for Screening History in Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer: Why, When, and How to Do It
From the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
In epidemiologic studies of cancer, differences between exposed and nonexposed persons with regard to a history of cancer screening during the time the malignancy (or an antecedent lesion) typically is present prior to diagnosis can be a source of confounding if one of the following conditions is present: 1) the screening modality identifies premalignant changes whose treatment has the potential to prevent the cancer from developing; or 2) the number of cases included in the study would have been smaller but for the presence of screening. These situations occur commonly, arguing that consideration be given to screening history in the design (with attention to distinguishing true screening tests from those administered to persons with signs or symptoms of cancer) and analysis of epidemiologic studies of those cancers for which screening modalities are in use in the study population.
confounding factors (epidemiology); effect modifiers (epidemiology); neoplasms
Abbreviations: Abbreviation: NSAID, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.:
- Invited Commentary: Screening as a Nuisance Variable in Cancer Epidemiology: Methodological Considerations
- Marshall M. Joffe
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003 157: 962-964.[Extract] [FREE Full Text] - Weiss Responds to "Screening as a Nuisance Variable in Cancer Epidemiology": For Which Aspects of a Study Subject’s Screening History Should We Control?
- Noel S. Weiss
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003 157: 965.[Extract] [FREE Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. R. Cook, B. A. Rosner, S. E. Hankinson, and G. A. Colditz Mammographic Screening and Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Am. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2009; 170(11): 1422 - 1432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 U. Peters, M. F. Leitzmann, N. Chatterjee, Y. Wang, D. Albanes, E. P. Gelmann, M. D. Friesen, E. Riboli, and R. B. Hayes Serum Lycopene, Other Carotenoids, and Prostate Cancer Risk: a Nested Case-Control Study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2007; 16(5): 962 - 968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. R. Localio, L. Zhou, and S. A. Norman Measuring Screening Intensity in Case-Control Studies of the Efficacy of Mammography Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2006; 164(3): 272 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. A. Kirsh, S. T. Mayne, U. Peters, N. Chatterjee, M. F. Leitzmann, L. B. Dixon, D. A. Urban, E. D. Crawford, and R. B. Hayes A Prospective Study of Lycopene and Tomato Product Intake and Risk of Prostate Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2006; 15(1): 92 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. J. Cross, U. Peters, V. A. Kirsh, G. L. Andriole, D. Reding, R. B. Hayes, and R. Sinha A Prospective Study of Meat and Meat Mutagens and Prostate Cancer Risk Cancer Res., December 15, 2005; 65(24): 11779 - 11784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Joffe Invited Commentary: Screening as a Nuisance Variable in Cancer Epidemiology: Methodological Considerations Am. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2003; 157(11): 962 - 964. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. S. Weiss Weiss Responds to "Screening as a Nuisance Variable in Cancer Epidemiology": For Which Aspects of a Study Subject's Screening History Should We Control? Am. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2003; 157(11): 965 - 965. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|