Response: Reading Between the Lines of Cancer Screening Trials: Using Modeling to Understand the Evidence.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle WA.Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 04/2013; 51(4):304-306. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31828a7e1a
In our article about limitations of basing screening policy on screening trials, we offered several examples of ways in which modeling, using data from large screening trials and population trends, provided insights that differed somewhat from those based only on empirical trial results. In this editorial, we take a step back and consider the general question of whether randomized screening trials provide the strongest evidence for clinical guidelines concerning population screening programs. We argue that randomized trials provide a process that is designed to protect against certain biases but that this process does not guarantee that inferences based on empirical results from screening trials will be unbiased. Appropriate quantitative methods are key to obtaining unbiased inferences from screening trials. We highlight several studies in the statistical literature demonstrating that conventional survival analyses of screening trials can be misleading and list a number of key questions concerning screening harms and benefits that cannot be answered without modeling. Although we acknowledge the centrality of screening trials in the policy process, we maintain that modeling constitutes a powerful tool for screening trial interpretation and screening policy development.
- Medical care 04/2013; 51(4):293-294. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31828c0c8e · 3.23 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT This review, based on published papers, aims to describe the costs of prostate cancer screening and to examine whether prostate cancer screening is cost effective. The estimated cost per cancer detected ranged from €1299 in The Netherlands to US$44,355 in the USA. The estimated cost per life-year saved ranged from US$3000 to US$729,000, while the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was AU$291,817 and Can$371,100. The most appropriate data for economic evaluation of prostate cancer screening should be the cost per QALY gained. The estimated costs per QALY gained by prostate cancer screening were significantly higher than the cost-effectiveness threshold, suggesting that even when based on favorable randomized controlled trials in younger age groups, prostate cancer screening is still not cost effective.Future Oncology 02/2015; 11(3):467-477. DOI:10.2217/fon.14.273 · 2.48 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.