View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
HOW MUCH DOES SCREENING REDUCE CANCER MORTALITY?
James A. Hanley1, Zhihui (Amy) Liu1,2, Nandini Dendukuri1,3, Erin Strumpf1,4
1Dept. of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health2Cancer Care Ontario
3Dept. of Medicine, and Technology Assessment Unit4Dept. of Economics
McGill University
51ST ANNUAL ANDRÉ AISENSTADT MEMORIAL CLINICAL DAYCANCER SCREENING – UPDATE 2014
A Symposium in Honour of Dr. André LisbonaJewish General Hospital
October 22, 2014
Summary
• Harms have been (well) measured; benefits have been mis-measured
• By ignoring the delay until the reductions in mortality are expressed, theprevailing interpretations of the results of cancer screening trialsunder-estimate the mortality reductions that would be produced by asustained screening program
• P-value-driven RCT stopping/reporting rules exacerbate the problem
• Ways we might be able to avoid such misleading estimates
• Lung, Prostate, Colon: re-analysis of data from trials
• Breast : data from outdated trials population-screening
Outline
• Why do so many trials yield a 20% ‘mortality reduction’ ? [Theorem]
• The mortality reductions produced by a cancer screening program
• A way ahead? (impact of N-round program:∑i=N
i=1 impact of roundi )
• Illustrations: cancer of the prostate, breast, colon
• Comments: cancer of the breast
20% MORTALITY REDUCTION
A UNIVERSAL CONSTANT IN CANCER SCREENING TRIALS?
For many RCTs,single rate (hazard) ratio or risk difference is OK
• A single (overall) Rate Reduction (i.e., single Rate Ratio),based on all events that have occurred (regardless ofwhen) up to end of available follow-up time on each subject
• ‘Regardless of when’ implies proportional hazards, i.e.,reduction is immediate & sustained (if need be, bycontinuing to take medications)
• Numbers of events matter, but not their timing:Q: how to have sufficient events for desired precision?
more persons, less time? ↔ more time, fewer persons?• As amount of person time (number of events) increases,
updated single Rate Reduction traces out a random walk
Reductions in ‘event rates’ as follow-up time unfolds
P = 0.05
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800(Cumulative) Number of Events
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Reduction in Average Event Rate, if data are analyzed after indicated no. of events
Examples of ‘prevention’ / ‘early detection’ studies
HIV: if ‘intervention’ ineffective
P = 0.05
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800(Cumulative) Number of Events
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Reduction in Average Event Rate, if data are analyzed after indicated no. of events
---> Time 0
0.5
1 [ref.]RateRatio
HIV: Adult circumcision
P = 0.05
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800(Cumulative) Number of Events
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Reduction in Average Event Rate, if data are analyzed after indicated no. of events
---> Time 0
0.5
1 [ref.]RateRatio
Paralytic or non-paralytic poliomyelitis: Salk Vaccine
P = 0.05
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800(Cumulative) Number of Events
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Reduction in Average Event Rate, if data are analyzed after indicated no. of events
2) Paralytic/non-paralytic poliomyelitis[Salk Vaccine]
HPV6,11,16,18 infection: Quadrivalent HPV Vaccine
P = 0.05
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800(Cumulative) Number of Events
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Reduction in Average Event Rate, if data are analyzed after indicated no. of events
2) Paralytic/non-paralytic poliomyelitis[Salk Vaccine]
1) Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) infection[Quadrivalent HPV vaccine]
Death from ruptured abdominal aneurym: Ultrasound screening
P = 0.05
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800(Cumulative) Number of Events
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Reduction in Average Event Rate, if data are analyzed after indicated no. of events
1) Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) infection[Quadrivalent HPV vaccine]
2) Paralytic/non-paralytic poliomyelitis[Salk Vaccine]
3) Death from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm[Ultrasound screening]
Cancer Screening Trial - theoretical
P = 0.05
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800(Cumulative) Number of Events
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Reduction in Average Event Rate, if data are analyzed after indicated no. of events
[0%]
[2%]
[14%]
[35%][50%]
[50%]
[50%]
7)
---> Time 0
0.5
1 [ref.]RateRatio
3 actual cancer screening trials
P = 0.05
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800(Cumulative) Number of Events
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Reduction in Average Event Rate, if data are analyzed after indicated no. of events
1) Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) infection[Quadrivalent HPV vaccine]
2) Paralytic/non-paralytic poliomyelitis[Salk Vaccine]
3) Death from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm[Ultrasound screening]
5) COLON
4) PROSTATE
6) LUNG
What payers would like to know about a PROGRAM
(a) Age-specific numbers of prostate cancer deaths in a steady state population with a given age-structure, if screening had not been available, and if screening had been available from ages 50 to 70
(b) The corresponding age-specific prostate cancer mortality rate ratios
Deaths in absence of screening
Deaths despite screening
Deaths averted by screening
Population
No.
pro
stat
e ca
ncer
dea
ths
per 1
-yea
r age
-ban
d
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0K
5K
10K
15K
20K
25K
30K
35K
40K
45K
Population per 1-year age-band
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Age
Screening
0 100%0.25 75%0.5 50%0.75 25%1 0%
No Screening
ScreeningMortalityRateRatio
MortalityReduction (%)
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Age
WebFigure 2. Age-specific numbers of prostate cancer deaths and prostate cancer mortality rate ratios.Age-specific numbers from Quebec in the early 1990s are used to represent the (steady-state) annual numbers of prostate cancer deaths in the absence of screening.The numbers of annual deaths that there would have been in these same population had a screening program been available [from when men reach the age of 50 untilthey turn 70] are hypothetical. Note that these two sets of numbers are age-specific, not cumulative – they decrease if the age range is extended past 85 – and merelyreflect the exponential rise in prostate cancer death rates with age. The rate ratio graph in panel (b) is modeled after Figure 2-5(b) in Morrison and is designed to illustrate (from left to right) its three features: the time-lag until the deathsaverted by screening become apparent, the 20 years of full benefit that follow – after this lag -- the 20 years of screening, and the disappearance of the effect (i.e., areversion to late-age mortality rates in the unscreened scenario) at some point after the last age at which men are screened.
or (b) the Rate Ratio (or %Reduction) Function ...
(a) Age-specific numbers of prostate cancer deaths in a steady state population with a given age-structure, if screening had not been available, and if screening had been available from ages 50 to 70
(b) The corresponding age-specific prostate cancer mortality rate ratios
Deaths in absence of screening
Deaths despite screening
Deaths averted by screening
Population
No.
pro
stat
e ca
ncer
dea
ths
per 1
-yea
r age
-ban
d
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0K
5K
10K
15K
20K
25K
30K
35K
40K
45K
Population per 1-year age-band
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Age
Screening
0 100%0.25 75%0.5 50%0.75 25%1 0%
No Screening
ScreeningMortalityRateRatio
MortalityReduction (%)
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Age
WebFigure 2. Age-specific numbers of prostate cancer deaths and prostate cancer mortality rate ratios.Age-specific numbers from Quebec in the early 1990s are used to represent the (steady-state) annual numbers of prostate cancer deaths in the absence of screening.The numbers of annual deaths that there would have been in these same population had a screening program been available [from when men reach the age of 50 untilthey turn 70] are hypothetical. Note that these two sets of numbers are age-specific, not cumulative – they decrease if the age range is extended past 85 – and merelyreflect the exponential rise in prostate cancer death rates with age. The rate ratio graph in panel (b) is modeled after Figure 2-5(b) in Morrison and is designed to illustrate (from left to right) its three features: the time-lag until the deathsaverted by screening become apparent, the 20 years of full benefit that follow – after this lag -- the 20 years of screening, and the disappearance of the effect (i.e., areversion to late-age mortality rates in the unscreened scenario) at some point after the last age at which men are screened.
‘% Reduction function’ (bathtub shape)
• The asymptote is the ultimate estimand
• It is determined by ...
– number and spacing of rounds, and
– the contribution of each round of screening
• From published trials, can one ..
– estimate the % Reduction function ?
– estimate contribution of each round ?(?? function shape if different schedule or if a program)
PROSTATE CANCER
Screening & Prostate-Ca Mortality in Randomized European Study ’92-’08 (“ERSPC” nejm2009.04)
As of December 31, 2006, with an average follow-up time of 8.8 years, there were 214 prostate-cancer deaths in thescreening group and 326 in the control group. (...) The adjusted rate ratio for death from prostate cancer in thescreening group was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98; P=0.04).
“PSA-based screening reduced the rate of death from prostate cancer by 20%. ”
RE-ANALYSIS OF ERSPC DATAusing
year-specific prostate cancer mortality ratios
(A) Overall vs. (B) Year-specific mortality ratios
67%
(B)Prostate Cancer Mortality Rate Ratio (S / C)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.25 75%
0.5 50%
0.75 25%
1 0%
1.25
67%
Percentage Reductionin Year-Specific Prostate Cancer
Mortality Rate
( [C - S] as % of C )
Follow-Up Year:
Yearly Numbers of Prostate Cancer Deathsin Control (C) and Screening (S) Arms . . .
Numbers of Men Being Followed at Mid-Yearin Control (C) and Screening (S) Arms . . .
C:
C:
2
89K
6
88K
21
87K
27
84K
26
82K
39
79K
29
76K
59
71K
40
55K
40
38K
21
22K
11
9K
S:
S:
5
73K
5
72K
10
71K
20
68K
21
66K
28
64K
27
61K
33
57K
25
44K
24
31K
8
18K
3
8K
(A)Cumulative Prostate Cancer Mortality
By the End of Follow-Up Year: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Control Arm (C)
Screening Arm (S)
Hanley, J Medical Screening, 2010.
Articles
www.thelancet.com Published online August 7, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0 1
Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-upFritz H Schröder, Jonas Hugosson, Monique J Roobol, Teuvo L J Tammela, Marco Zappa, Vera Nelen, Maciej Kwiatkowski, Marcos Lujan, Liisa Määttänen, Hans Lilja, Louis J Denis, Franz Recker, Alvaro Paez, Chris H Bangma, Sigrid Carlsson, Donella Puliti, Arnauld Villers, Xavier Rebillard, Matti Hakama, Ulf-Hakan Stenman, Paula Kujala, Kimmo Taari, Gunnar Aus, Andreas Huber, Theo H van der Kwast, Ron H N van Schaik, Harry J de Koning, Sue M Moss, Anssi Auvinen, for the ERSPC Investigators*
SummaryBackground The European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown signifi cant reductions in prostate cancer mortality after 9 years and 11 years of follow-up, but screening is controversial because of adverse events such as overdiagnosis. We provide updated results of mortality from prostate cancer with follow-up to 2010, with analyses truncated at 9, 11, and 13 years.
Methods ERSPC is a multicentre, randomised trial with a predefi ned centralised database, analysis plan, and core age group (55–69 years), which assesses prostate-specifi c antigen (PSA) testing in eight European countries. Eligible men aged 50–74 years were identifi ed from population registries and randomly assigned by computer generated random numbers to screening or no intervention (control). Investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer mortality in the core age group. Analysis was by intention to treat. We did a secondary analysis that corrected for selection bias due to non-participation. Only incidence and no mortality data at 9 years’ follow-up are reported for the French centres. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN49127736.
Findings With data truncated at 13 years of follow-up, 7408 prostate cancer cases were diagnosed in the intervention group and 6107 cases in the control group. The rate ratio of prostate cancer incidence between the intervention and control groups was 1·91 (95% CI 1·83–1·99) after 9 years (1·64 [1·58–1·69] including France), 1·66 (1·60–1·73) after 11 years, and 1·57 (1·51–1·62) after 13 years. The rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality was 0·85 (0·70–1·03) after 9 years, 0·78 (0·66–0·91) after 11 years, and 0·79 (0·69–0·91) at 13 years. The absolute risk reduction of death from prostate cancer at 13 years was 0·11 per 1000 person-years or 1·28 per 1000 men randomised, which is equivalent to one prostate cancer death averted per 781 (95% CI 490–1929) men invited for screening or one per 27 (17–66) additional prostate cancer detected. After adjustment for non-participation, the rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality in men screened was 0·73 (95% CI 0·61–0·88).
Interpretation In this update the ERSPC confi rms a substantial reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to testing of PSA, with a substantially increased absolute eff ect at 13 years compared with fi ndings after 9 and 11 years. Despite our fi ndings, further quantifi cation of harms and their reduction are still considered a prerequisite for the introduction of populated-based screening.
Funding Each centre had its own funding responsibility.
IntroductionThe European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) has shown signifi cant re-ductions in prostate cancer mortality after 9 years1 and 11 years of follow-up.2 Despite these results, screening for prostate cancer is controversial because of adverse eff ects such as overdiagnosis, which is estimated to include 40–50% of screen-detected cases and often results in overtreatment with subsequent side-eff ects.3–5 However, a modelling study, partly based on ERSPC data, showed that with a 4-year screening interval a gain of 52 life-years and a gain of 41 quality-of-life-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was achieved per 1000 men, despite some reduction in quality of life
due to overdiagnosis and long-term side-eff ects of treatment.5
We report updated results of mortality from prostate cancer with follow-up to 2010, with analyses truncated at 9 years, 11 years, and 13 years of follow-up. For the fi rst time, we include France in the analysis of incidence of prostate cancer at 9 years of follow-up, but not in the analysis of mortality because of incomplete follow-up to the end of 2010.
MethodsStudy design and participantsThe ERSPC is a multicentre, randomised, screening trial with the main aim to compare mortality from prostate
Published OnlineAugust 7, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0
See Online/Commenthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61008-4
*For the full study group see appendix
Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Prof F H Schröder MD, M J Roobol PhD, Prof C H Bangma MD); Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden (Prof J Hugosson PhD, S Carlsson MD); Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland (Prof T L J Tammela MD); School of Medicine, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland (Prof T L J Tammela); Unit of Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology, ISPO, Florence, Italy (M Zappa MD, D Puliti MSc); Provinciaal Instituut voor Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium (V Nelen MD); Department of Urology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (M Kwiatkowski MD, Prof F Recker MD); Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany (M Kwiatkowski); Department of Urology, Hospital Infanta Cristina, Parla, Madrid, Spain (M Lujan MD); Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Getafe, Madrid, Spain (M Lujan); Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain (M Lujan); Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland (L Määttänen PhD,
Prof M Hakama PhD);
Articles
4 www.thelancet.com Published online August 7, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0
Department of Clinical Chemistry, Helsinki University
Central Hospital Laboratory Division (HUSLAB), Helsinki,
Finland (Prof U-H Stenman PhD); FIMLAB, Department of
Pathology, Tampere, Finland
analysis of incidence of prostate cancer with 1–9 years’ follow-up. Appendix pp 13–16, 20, 21 shows the analysis considering all available ages. Appendix p 17 shows a further secondary analysis of the results per centre for the core age group excluding France. No adjustment of signifi cance for α-spending in sequential analyses was
applied because the present analysis is protocol based and not driven by statistical signifi cance.17,18 Cumulative prostate cancer mortality by group was calculated with the Nelson-Aalen method.17 Number needed to invite (NNI) to avert one prostate cancer death was calculated as the inverse of the absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to detect (NND) as the NNI multiplied by the excess incidence of prostate cancer in the intervention group. Analyses were done with Stata version 12.1.
This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN49127736.
Role of the funding sourceThe funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Access to data was limited to the independent data centre led by SMM. None of the investigators had access to outcome data outside the planned offi cial reports of the data centre. FHS produced the primary version and was responsible for submitting the report.
ResultsIn the core group of men aged 55–69 years, excluding France, 162 388 were randomly assigned, of whom 145 died between randomisation and screening. With data truncated at 13 years of follow-up, 7408 prostate
Intervention group Control group Rate ratio*(95% CI)
p value Rate diff erence per 1000 person-years*(95% CI)
Rate diff er-ence per 1000 men*
Adjusted rate ratio in attenders*(95% CI)
p value
Prostate cancer deaths(n)
Person-years
Rate per 1000 person-years
Prostate cancer deaths(n)
Person-years
Rate per 1000 person- years
Years 1–9 193 614 590 0·31 278 751 777 0·37 0·85 (0·70 to 1·03) 0·10 −0·06 (−0·12 to 0·01) −0·46 ·· ··
Years 1–11 265 732 133 0·35 415 896 367 0·46 0·78 (0·66 to 0·91) 0·002 −0·10 (−0·17 to −0·04) −1·02 0·71 (0·58 to 0·88) 0·001
Years 1–13 355 825 018 0·43 545 1 011 192 0·54 0·79 (0·69 to 0·91) 0·001 −0·11 (−0·18 to −0·05) −1·28 0·73 (0·61 to 0·88) 0·0007
*Adjusted by centre and for the randomisation ratio 1:1·5 intervention group versus control group in Finland.
Table 3: Prostate cancer mortality in the intervention and control groups during three time periods truncated (all centres, core age group, France excluded except for years 1–9)
Figure 2: Nelson–Aalen estimates of cumulative prostate cancer mortality (all centres, excluding France)
Intervention groupControl group
1 3 5 7 9 11 130
0·002
0·004
0·006
0·008
0·010N
elso
n-Aa
len
cum
ulat
ive
haza
rd
Time since randomisation (years)
Intervention group Control group Rate ratio*(95% CI)
Rate diff erence per 1000 person-years*(95% CI)
Rate diff erence per 1000 men*
Prostate cancer(n)
Person-years
Rate per 1000 person- years
Prostate cancer(n)
Person-years
Rate per 1000 person-years
Years 1–9 including France 7902 835 353 9·46 5726 984 993 5·81 1·64 (1·58–1·69) 3·69 (3·42–3·95) 26·5
Years 1–9 6147 585 627 10·50 4127 736 688 5·60 1·91 (1·83–1·99) 5·00 (4·68–5·32) 39·0
Years 1–11 6797 692 186 9·82 5262 873 415 6·02 1·66 (1·60–1·73) 3·90 (3·61–4·20) 35·5
Years 1–13 7408 775 527 9·55 6107 980 474 6·23 1·57 (1·51–1·62) 3·44 (3·16–3·72) 34·8
*Control group for Finland weighted by 1:1·5.
Table 2: Prostate cancer incidence in the intervention and control groups during three time periods truncated (all centres, core age group, France excluded except for years 1–9)
Articles
www.thelancet.com Published online August 7, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0 5
(P Kujala MD); Department of Urology, Helsinki University Central Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (K Taari MD); Department of Urology, Carlanderska Sjukhuset Göteborg, Sweden (G Aus MD); Centre of Laboratory Medicine, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland (Prof A Huber MD); Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands Prof T H van der Kwast PhD MD); Department of Clinical Chemistry, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Prof R H N van Schaik PhD); Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Prof H J de Koning MD); and Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK (Prof S M Moss PhD)
Correspondence to:Prof Fritz H Schröder, Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, Netherlandssecr.schroder@erasmusmc.nl
cancer cases were diagnosed in the intervention group and 6107 cases in the control group (fi gure 1).
The median age at randomisation was 60·2 years (table 1). The overall compliance with biopsies was 85·6%, 20 188 of 23 574 screen-positive tests. On average, men in the intervention group were screened 2·3 times (ranging from 1·6 times in Belgium with a 7-year interval to 3·5 times in Sweden with a 2-year interval). Of the screen-positive men who underwent a biopsy, 4883 (24·2%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer within 12 months after testing (table 1).
With follow-up truncated at 13 years, prostate cancer incidence was 9·55 per 1000 person-years in the intervention group and 6·23 in the control group (table 2).
With follow-up truncated at 13 years, prostate cancer mortality was 0·43 per 1000 person-years in the inter-vention group and 0·54 per 1000 person-years in the control group (RR of 0·79, 95% CI 0·69–0·91, p=0·001; table 3, fi gure 2). We recorded a similar RR after 11 years (table 3). After adjustment for non-participation, we noted an RR of 0·71 (95% CI 0·58–0·88, p=0·001) after 11 years and 0·73 (0·61–0·88, p<0·0007) after 13 years (table 3).
The absolute risk reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years of follow-up in the intervention group compared with the control group, after adjustment for the randomisation ratio of 1:1·5 in Finland was 0·11 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 person-years or 1·28 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men, which yielded an NNI of 781 (95% CI 490–1929) and an NND of 27 (17–66). The NNI and NND were substantially decreased from follow-up to 9 years (NNI 1410, NND 48) and 11 years (NNI 979 [95% CI 594–2770], NND 35 [21–96]).1,2 All-cause mortality did not diff er between the two trial groups (table 4).
In addition to the core age group, we noted a signifi cant reduction in prostate cancer mortality for all 181 999 men aged 50–74 years at entry (excluding France; table 4). The
eff ect of screening did not signifi cantly diff er across 5-year bands in the core age group or across the entire age range, but, most likely by chance, we noted a signifi cant reduction in prostate cancer mortality in the 65–69 year age group. We recorded a non-signifi cant increase in prostate cancer mortality in the 70 year and older screening group (table 4); however, men in this age group were screened only once, which might explain the absence of an eff ect of starting to screen late in life.
Figure 3 shows prostate cancer mortality for the two trial groups in 4-year intervals from date of randomisation. At 0–4 years the RR was 0·88 (95% CI 0·58–1·34), which decreased to 0·82 (0·64–1·06) at 4–8 years, and further decreased to 0·72 (0·59–0·88) at 8–12 years.
An analysis of prostate cancer mortality in the inter-vention and control groups in the core age group of individual centres showed signifi cant RRs only for Sweden (0·62 [95% CI 0·41–0·92]) and the Netherlands
Figure 3: Nelson-Aalen estimates of cumulative prostate cancer in both groups by 4-year periods (all centres, excluding France)
0 4 8 120
20
40
60
80
100
Rate
per
100
000
pers
on-y
ears
Years in trial
Control groupIntervention group
RR 0·72
RR 0·82
RR 0·88
Intervention group Control group Rate ratio (95% CI) p value
Deaths (n) Person-years Rate per1000 person-years
Deaths (n) Person-years Rate per1000 person-years
All-cause mortality
Core age group 15 369 825 018 18·6 19 108 1 011 192 18·9 1·00 (0·98–1·02) 0·82
All ages 18 251 935 185 19·5 21 992 1 120 432 19·6 1·00 (0·98–1·02) 0·98
Prostate cancer mortality
Age groups (years)
≤54 6 64 265 0·09 7 62 312 0·11 0·84 (0·28–2·49) 0·75
55–59 114 411 834 0·28 174 524 314 0·33 0·81 (0·93–1·03) 0·09
60–64 121 240 895 0·50 159 280 404 0·57 0·90 (0·71–1·15) 0·41
65–69 120 172 289 0·70 212 206 474 1·03 0·69 (0·55–0·87) 0·002
70≥ 66 45 903 1·44 58 46 928 1·24 1·17 (0·82–1·66) 0·40
Core age group 355 825 018 0·43 545 1 011 192 0·54 0·79 (0·69–0·91) 0·001
All ages 427 935 185 0·46 610 1 120 432 0·54 0·83 (0·73–0·94) 0·004
Test for heterogeneity for prostate cancer mortality: all ages χ²₄=6·26 p=0·18; core age group: χ²₂=2·31 p=0·32.
Table 4: All cause and prostate cancer mortality by age at randomisation (France excluded)
See Online for appendix
BREAST CANCER
EVERY TRIAL & META-ANALYSIS:and (nejm2010) REPORT on NORWAY NATIONAL SCREENING PROGRAM:
REDUCTION UNDER-ESTIMATED
• Miettinen et al., Lancet 2002.• Hanley, Epidemiologic Reviews 2011.• Hanley JA, Z Liu Z, McGregor M. The [ratio of] benefits [to] harms of
breast cancer screening. Letter re the Report The Independent UKPanel on Breast Cancer Screening (Lancet Nov 17, 2012)
• Hanley JA, McGregor M, Liu Z, Strumpf EC, Dendukuri N.“Measuring the Mortality Impact of Breast Cancer Screening”.Can J Public Health. 2013 Sep 19;104(7):e437-42.(Response to 2011 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care)
Observed breast cancer mortality deficits in 5 Mammography TrialsStudyAges at entryRatio of No. in Experimental arm : No. in Control armParticipation Rate in screens that were part of trial
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Year
H.I.P.
40-69
1 : 1
65%
Legend
E: Experimental armC: Control arm.M : MammographyPE : Physical ExamSS : Service Screening
54
64
612
819
1524
1625
1420
1510
610
Reduction
20%
40%
60%Yearly no. Breast
Cancer Deaths
C:E:
in arm
E:
C:Screeningcontent
M-PE M-PE M-PE M-PE
- - - -
CTFPH
C,2011
101130
Malmo
55-70
1 : 1
70% 00
45
01
62
65
45
77
410
28
21
612
Reduction
20%
40%
60%
C:E:
E:
C:
M M M M M M
- - - - - -
134162
Gothenburg
39-59
0.7 : 1
82% 15
24
38
38
1015
78
46
516
610
613
59
58
45
22
Reduction
20%
40%
60%
C:E:
E:
C:
M M M M
- - - M
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
54103
2Counties
40-74
1.4 : 1
89% 32
1017
1917
1717
1736
1325
811
Reduction
20%
40%
60%
C:E:
E:
C:
M M M
- - -
SS
SS
195206
Stockholm
50-64
2 : 1
80% 11
21
43
33
42
45
54
54
44
33
51
22
Reduction
20%
40%
60%
C:E:
E:
C:
M M -
- - M
4837
.
• Year-specific data: trials used by Task Force.
• 20 years of screening, 50–69, would be followedby 20 years (55–74) in which the breast cancermortality reduction in these years would be ≥40%, with smaller deficits in other years.
• Fewer than 200 women would need toparticipate in such a program in order to avert abreast cancer death in the age range 50-80.
Corresponding Task Force estimates:
Mortality reduction: 21% ;Number of women: 720.
COLON CANCER
FOBT screening for colon cancer – Minnesota Trial 1976-2008
FOBT screening for colon cancer – Minnesota Trial 1976-2008
Long-Term Mortality after Colorectal-Cancer Screening
n engl j med 369;12 nejm.org september 19, 2013 1109
adjusted relative-risk estimates for death from colorectal cancer for the annual-screening and biennial-screening groups were 0.65 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.80) and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.95), respectively.
Annual or biennial screening with fecal occult-blood testing had no apparent effect on all-cause mortality. The relative risk of death from any cause was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.01) with an-nual screening, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.01) with biennial screening, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.01) with annual and biennial screening com-bined (Fig. 2 and Table 1). No effect was seen on deaths from causes other than colorectal cancer; the relative risk of death from causes unrelated to colorectal cancer was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02) with annual screening, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.01) with biennial screening, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.01) with annual and biennial screening com-bined (Fig. S5 in the Supplementary Appendix). The causes of death are provided in Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix.
SUBGROUP ANALYSESFigure 3 shows the numbers of participants who underwent randomization, the numbers of those who died from colorectal cancer, and the relative risks for the subgroups of age and sex, according to each study group and the combined screening groups. Graphs of cumulative colorectal-cancer mortality and corresponding relative risks for the subgroups are shown in Figures S6 and S7 in the Supplementary Appendix. The reduction in colorectal-cancer mortality was larger for men than for women in both screening groups and in the two groups combined; the relative risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80) for men vs. 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.97) for women in the annual-screening group, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82) vs. 0.92 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.18) in the biennial-screening group, and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.78) vs. 0.83 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.04) in the combined screening groups. The in-teraction between sex and screening, as mea-sured by the ratio of the relative risk for men to that for women, was significant in the biennial-screening group (P = 0.04 for interaction) but not in the annual-screening group or the two groups combined (P = 0.30 and P = 0.06, respectively, for interaction).
The relative risks of death from colorectal cancer among participants who were less than
Cum
ulat
ive
Col
orec
tal-C
ance
r Mor
talit
y
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.000 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years since Randomization
No. at RiskControlBiennial screeningAnnual screening
14,49714,63514,658
13,10313,24313,294
11,32011,44511,437
915793239219
674168026802
445045834498
ControlBiennial screeningAnnual screening
0.03 (0.03–0.03)0.02 (0.02–0.03)
0.02 (0.02–0.02)
Cumulative Colorectal-Cancer Mortalityat 30 Yr (95% CI)
Control
Biennial
Annual
Figure 1. Cumulative Colorectal-Cancer Mortality.
Cumulative colorectal-cancer mortality was assessed on the basis of Kaplan–Meier estimates, evaluated at monthly time points. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals at 30 years are also shown.
Cum
ulat
ive
All-C
ause
Mor
talit
y
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.00 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years since Randomization
No. at RiskControlBiennial screeningAnnual screening
14,49714,63514,658
13,10313,24313,294
11,32011,44511,437
915793239219
674168026802
445045834498
ControlBiennial screeningAnnual screening
0.71 (0.70–0.72)0.71 (0.70–0.71)0.71 (0.70–0.72)
Cumulative All-Cause Mortalityat 30 Yr (95% CI)
Figure 2. Cumulative All-Cause Mortality.
Cumulative all-cause mortality was assessed on the basis of Kaplan–Meier estimates, evaluated at monthly time points. Point estimates and 95% con-fidence intervals at 30 years are also shown.
The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org by James Hanley on September 19, 2013. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2013 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Radiologists as Statisticians2014-10-15, 1:21 PMThe 1970 Draft Lottery in R
Page 2 of 10http://msenux.redwoods.edu/math/R/lottery.php
Figure 1. Rep. Alexander Pirnie, R-NY, draws the first capsule in the lottery drawing held on Dec. 1, 1969. The capsule containedthe date, Sept. 14.
The last capsule drawn contained the date December 31. It was estimated by the Pentagon that men with draftnumbers in the last third, numbers 200 to 366, would escape the draft entirely. In fact, no man with a draftnumber higher than 195 was called to duty.
The fairness of the draft lottery was immediately debated. Critics contended that the process was not trulyrandom. A New York Times article quoted a White House source as saying "discussions that the lottery was notrandom are purely speculative." In that same New York Times article, Senator Edward Kennedy was quoted asasking the National Sciences the "apparent lack of randomness" in the selection.
The Data
The data is publicly available on the internet. One source is the Data and Story Library. The draft lottery data islocated at the following URL:
http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/DASL/Datafiles/DraftLottery.html
If you have not imported data into R from external sources, you might want to first work through the activityImporting Data in R.
One technique, as explained in Importing Data in R, suggests copying the data into a plain text file. Open asimple text editor (e.g., Notepad on Windows or Textedit on the Mac). Copy and paste the lottery data from theabove URL, including headers (but not the descriptive information above the headers), and save the file as
2014-10-15, 1:21 PMThe 1970 Draft Lottery in R
Page 7 of 10http://msenux.redwoods.edu/math/R/lottery.php
In the activity Boxplots in R we learned how to use R's boxplot command to produce a boxplot of a data set. Toexamine the "fairness" of the Selective Service's draft lottery, we will produce "side-by-side" boxplots for eachmonth of the year. That is, we will produce 12 boxplots, one for each month of the year, each containing ananalysis of the associated draft numbers for that month. The following command will produce these "side-by-side" boxplots shown in Figure 4.
> boxplot(Draft_No. ~ Month, data=lottery)
Figure 4. Side-by-side boxplots of draft numbers for each month.
Because the data in Month is categorical (you can see this by typing lottery$Month), the model formulaDraft_No. ~ Month causes the boxplot command to group the numerical data in Draft_No. according to thecategories in Month. Therefore, the command boxplot(Draft_No. ~ Month, data=lottery) creates 12 boxplots,one for each month. For example, the boxplot for April (see Apr in Figure 4) contains an analysis for only thosedraft numbers that were assigned to birth-dates in April. Similar comments are in order for the remainingmonths.
Unfortunately, the months are sorted in alphabetical order (the default behavior). It would be more appropriateif they were sorted in chronological order, January first, February second, etc. One solution would be to boxplotthe draft numbers versus the month number.
> boxplot(Draft_No. ~ Mo.Number, data=lottery)
This command produces the side-by-side boxplots shown in Figure 5.
2014-10-15, 1:21 PMThe 1970 Draft Lottery in R
Page 5 of 10http://msenux.redwoods.edu/math/R/lottery.php
Figure 2. A scatterplot of Draft_No. versus Day_of_year.
One could also "attach" the dataframe lottery (see Dataframes in R). When we "attach" a dataframe, we canaccess the columns without using the dollar notation. Thus, we can plot Draft_No. versus Day_of_year withthe following commands.
> attach(lottery)> plot(Day_of_year,Draft_No.)
It is good practice to "detach" the dataframe when finished.
> detach(lottery)
Readers should check that these commands produce a scatterplot identical to that shown in Figure 2.
Efficient Use of Dataframes
R's plot command, coupled with a "model formula," it the most efficient way to produce a scatterplot. Withoutfurther explanation, enter the following code. Note: Remember that ~ is a "tilde", not a minus sign, and islocated to the immediate left of the 1 key on the second row from the top of your keyboard.
> plot(Draft_No. ~ Day_of_year, data=lottery)
This command will produce the scatterplot shown in Figure 3. Note that it is identical to the scatterplot shownin Figure 2.
2014-10-15, 1:21 PMThe 1970 Draft Lottery in R
Page 9 of 10http://msenux.redwoods.edu/math/R/lottery.php
Figure 6. Side-by-side boxplots of draft numbers sorted by month.
Interpretation of Results
The image in Figure 6 is perfect. The months are now sorted in chronological order. But now, what does theimage of side-by-side boxplots tell us?
Remember, the heavy horizontal bar in each box is the median of the data set. The median draft number for themonth of December is very disconcerting. Remember, the lower the draft number, the more likely you would beinducted to serve in Vietnam. Why does the month of December have a median that is significantly lower thanmost of the other months. It seems that the men with birthdays in December are being unfairly selected. Indeed,with the exception of October, the last remaining months of the year all have medians that are significantlylower than the medians of the previous months. Something strange is going on!
One story offers a hint of an explanation. It seems that the capsules containing birthdays for January wereplaced in a shoe-box, thoroughly mixed, then poured into the glass container shown in Figure 1. Then the sameprocedure was followed for the capsules containing birthdays in February, stirring them thoroughly in a shoe-box, then pouring them into the glass container. This same procedure was followed for the remaining months.December was the last month processed, or so the story goes.
However, this is quite disturbing. If capsules were selected from the top of the glass container, they were morelikely to be a December birthday. According to the story, the person making the draws did not always reachdeep into the pile of capsules. This may be one explanation for why so many December birthdays were selectedearly in the process and assigned low draft numbers (which correlates to a higher chance of being drafted).
This story may be an oversimplification. Readers are encouraged to explore the reasons for why this process
Time-split versus time-lumped Rate Ratios
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1:30
1-year binsRate Ratio
Year
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1:30
rep(
1, 3
0)
2-year binsRate Ratio
Year
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1:30
rep(
1, 3
0)
3-year binsRate Ratio
Year
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
5-year binsRate Ratio
Year
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
rep(
1, 3
0)
10-year binsRate Ratio
Year
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
rep(
1, 3
0)
30-year binsRate Ratio
Year
annual
biennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
Time-split versus time-lumped Rate Ratios
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1:30
1-year moving binsRate Ratio
Year
annual
biennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1:30
rep(
1, 3
0)
2-year moving binsRate Ratio
Year
annual
biennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1:30
rep(
1, 3
0)
3-year moving binsRate Ratio
Year
annual
biennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1:30
rep(
1, 3
0)
4-year moving binsRate Ratio
Year
annual
biennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
5-year moving binsRate Ratio
Year
annual
biennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
rep(
1, 3
0)
10-year moving binsRate Ratio
Year
annualbiennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
rep(
1, 3
0)
20-year moving binsRate Ratio
Year
annualbiennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
rep(
1, 3
0)
30-year moving binsRate Ratio
Year
annual
biennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
Dear Editor
• Shaukat et al. report reductions of 32% and 22% in colon cancer mortality in
those offered 11 annual and 6 biennial FOB screens, respectively. These
reductions were achieved despite a 4-year hiatus in screening, and averaging
over all 30-years of follow-up.
• What would the reductions have been without such an interruption? To answer
this, we extracted the yearly numbers of deaths from the published Figure 1, and
instead calculated yearly mortality reductions. Because of the unusual schedule,
the resulting reduction curve has a ‘W’ shape, showing the lagged responses to
the two phases of screening: after a delay of some years, mortality reductions
reached a nadir of around 40% before reverting to what they would be in the
absence of screening; this pattern is repeated when screening is resumed.
• Without the (funding related) hiatus, the reductions would have been around
40% for each year affected, which is substantially larger than those estimated.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
0 10 20 30
● ●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
Annual
Biennial
S S S S S S
S S S S S S S S S S S
0%
20%
40%
60%
Red
uctio
n in
Col
on C
ance
r M
orta
lity
Years since Randomization
Yearly reductions in colon cancer mortality in two screening arms. Each dot is based
on number of deaths in a three year moving window; smooth curves were fitted though
them. Because the hiatus was in calendar-time rather than follow-up time, and entries
were staggered, the timing of the screens (each denoted by an ‘S’) is only approximate.
From Trial to Program
STATISTICAL MODEL
Convolution of reductions produced by individual roundsYearly
Number ofDeaths
(a)
0
20
40
60
80
100
YearlyMortalityReduction
RemarksUnscreened
Screened
S1 S2 S3
1YEAR: 2
1
3
1
2
4
1
2
3
5
35%
1
2
3
6
1
2
3
7
2
3
8
3
9 10 11 12 13
TRIAL
60%
40%
20%
If one round of screening reduces mortality in each of 5 future years, then
in a trial, 3 rounds of screening -- S1, S2 and S3 -- would produce 3 'waves'
of mortality reductions ('1', '2', '3'), each 5 years wide, over 7 years (Y3-Y9).
In such a trial, the maximal reduction (35%, year 6) would be smaller than
the sustained (46%) reductions produced by a 20-year screening program.
The average reduction, computed over 13 years of follow-up in such a trial would
be an even more serious underestimate of the impact of a 20-year program.
(b)
0
20
40
60
80
100
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20
50AGE:
1 1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
55
46%
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
7
60
etc.
65 70
46%
16
17
18
19
20
17
18
19
20
18
19
20
19
20
20
75
PROGRAM YearlyMortalityReduction
60%
40%
20%
Annual mortality reductions produced by once-a-year screening that begins when women reach 50, and ends when they reach 69
Fitted Model (each round) & Resulting Fits for 6 and 11 Rounds (JH)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Rate Ratio
Year
annual
biennial
4
4
3
7
6
3
5
8
9
5
15
4
3
6
6
9
7
2
13
8
6
8
8
9
12
10
7
13
9
6
16
6
10
14
14
10
11
10
5
10
8
7
9
7
11
10
6
7
7
9
10
6
6
5
9
12
4
10
4
8
17
12
8
13
6
6
8
5
9
8
6
8
13
5
4
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
4
3
7
8
6
6
5
3
Effect of 1 round6.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Red
uction
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0 %
S S S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S Biennial (78% compliance)
Annual (75% compliance)
A D2
D1
D0
3
4
4
3
6
7
9
8
5
4
15
7
6
11
1
2
7
9
6
8
13
9
8
8
8
10
13
6
9
13
10
6
17
10
14
14
5
9
11
7
8
10
11
7
9
7
6
10
10
9
12
5
5
14
4
12
9
8
4
10
8
12
17
6
6
13
9
5
8
8
6
8
4
5
13
10
10
11
8
9
10
2
3
6
6
10
7
6
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Follow−up year
Re
du
ction
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0 %B
S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S
Biennial (78% compliance)
95% confidence bands (biennial)
Annual (75% compliance)
Figure 5–4: Panel A: Empirical and fitted mortality reductions based on the yearlynumbers of colorectal cancer deaths in the two screening arms of the MinnesotaColorectal Cancer Screening Study, with the 4-year hiatus. The size of each dot isproportional to the information contribution of the empirical year-specific mortalityratio. Because the hiatus was in calendar-time rather than follow-up time, and entrieswere staggered, the timing of the screens, each denoted by an S, is only approximate.Panel B: Projection of yearly mortality reductions in colorectal cancer that wouldbe generated by 15 years of uninterrupted annual and biennial fecal occult bloodscreening. The grey area represents time-specific 95% confidence bands under thebiennial screening regimen.
98
LUNG CANCER
T h e n e w e ngl a nd j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e
10.1056/nejmoa1102873 nejm.org 1
original article
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team*
The members of the writing team (who are listed in the Appendix) assume re-sponsibility for the integrity of the article. Address reprint requests to Dr. Christine D. Berg at the Early Detection Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Execu-tive Blvd., Suite 3112, Bethesda, MD 20892-7346, or at bergc@mail.nih.gov.
* A complete list of members of the Na-tional Lung Screening Trial research team is provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.
This article (10.1056/NEJMoa1102873) was published on June 29, 2011, at NEJM.org.
N Engl J Med 2011.Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society.
A BS TR AC T
BackgroundThe aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screen-ing, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer.
MethodsFrom August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to un-dergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or sin-gle-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009.
ResultsThe rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screen-ing tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P = 0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P = 0.02).
ConclusionsScreening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.)
The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org on June 29, 2011. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
NLST
Age at entry : 55−74
CT : X−ray allocation = 1 : 1
Compliance = 94%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
31
37
57
68
67
82
84
95
72
84
42
73
Reduction
20%
40%
60%
No. Lung Cancer Deaths
CT CT CT
X−ray X−ray X−ray
Figure 6–1: NLST yearly numbers of lung cancer deaths, extracted from publishedNEJM report.
advantage of occasionally rediscussing statistical conclusions, by starting
from the same documents as their author. I have begun to think that no
one ought to publish biometric results, without lodging a well arranged
and well bound manuscript copy of all his data, in some place, where it
should be accessible under reasonable restrictions, to those who desire to
verify his work.
In screening trials, the cumulative measures often hide the reduction patterns
over time, and because of this, we have been on a ‘campaign’ calling on trialists to
report (at least) the yearly numbers of cancer-specific deaths (as opposed to just a
cumulative mortality reduction over some arbitrary follow-up window), if disclosing
the individual-level data is not possible [53]. From our experience, the aggregated
numbers are in fact ‘near-sufficient’ statistics. Moreover, even if yearly counts are not
105
NLST
Age at entry : 55−74
CT : X−ray allocation = 1 : 1
Compliance = 94%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
31
37
57
68
67
82
84
95
72
84
42
73
50
80
55
90
70
95
80
100
Reduction
20%
40%
60%
No. Lung Cancer Deaths
CT CT CT
X−ray X−ray X−ray
Figure 6–2: NLST yearly numbers of lung cancer deaths, with relatively large hypo-thetical reductions in years 7-10.
obtainable, we proposed to combine information from multiple trials by adding up
the trial-specific log-likelihoods to obtain an overall log-likelihood for more accurate
parameter estimates, which avoids sharing neither the individual-level data or the
aggregated data. This idea was presented by Hanley at the Statistical Society of
Canada Annual Meeting in 2012.
Having said this, the NCI generously reached out and made their individual-
level data available to qualified investigators in early 2013. We immediately took
advantage of the offer. Information on all of the 53,452 randomized persons (26,722
in the CT arm and 26,730 in the X-ray arm) was recorded in the patient file. Using
the following variates: number of days from randomization to the end of follow-up
(fup days), number of days from randomization to death (death days) and cause
106
NLST
Age at entry : 55−74
CT : X−ray allocation = 1 : 1
Compliance = 94%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
31
37
57
68
67
82
84
95
72
84
42
73
65
80
75
90
80
95
90
100
Reduction
20%
40%
60%
No. Lung Cancer Deaths
CT CT CT
X−ray X−ray X−ray
Figure 6–3: NLST yearly numbers of lung cancer deaths, with relatively small hy-pothetical reductions in years 7-10.
of death (finaldeathLC==1 for death from lung cancer), we can make a population-
time plot to illustrate the study base and some key features of the trial. Figure
6–4 shows that (i) the randomization ratio was 1:1, and the amount of population
time was similar between the two arms, (ii) the median length of follow-up was
about 6.5 years and most people were alive by the end of the follow-up; and (iii)
although these smokers (compared to the general population) may have an elevated
risk of dying from lung cancer, in absolute terms, lung cancer mortality was still
quite low in both arms – there were a total of 1,019 deaths from lung cancer over the
entire follow-up, 467 in the CT arms and 552 in the CXR arm. Thus, the empirical
6.5-year risk ratio of (467/26722)/(552/26730) = 0.846 and the mortality rate ratio
of (467/171,412)/(552/170,355) = 0.841 are very close. The cumulative mortality
reduction from lung cancer over 6.5 years is 1− 0.846 = 15.4%.
107
0 2 4 6 8
Follow−up Year
Po
pu
latio
n
CT arm
X−ray arm
467 lung ca. deaths
171,412 PYs
552 lung ca. deaths
170,355 PYs
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Figure 6–4: NLST number at risk for the two arms, along with lung cancer deaths,using the individual-level data provided by the NCI.
Checking the yearly numbers that we extracted in Table 6–1(a) against those
calculated from individual-level data in Table 6–1(b) was one of our first tasks, by
including lung cancer deaths before the cutoff date only. They were almost identical,
only differing by a few deaths. Next we included lung cancer deaths also after the
108
Table 6–1: Yearly numbers of lung cancer deaths in the NLST. Part (a) was based onour extraction from the NEJM report, (b) and (c) are based on the individual-levelNLST data; in (b) only deaths that occurred before the cut-off (i.e. January 15th,2009) were included, and in (c) all deaths occurred before and after the cutoff datewere included.
(a) Year-specific data extracted from figure in NEJM reportFollow-up Year: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
Screens ↑ ↑ ↑X-ray Arm: 37 68 82 95 84 73 4 442
CT Arm: 31 57 67 84 72 42 3 354Reduction: 16% 16% 18% 12% 14% 42% 25% 20%
(b) Year-specific data including deaths before the cutoff onlyX-ray Arm: 38 70 83 91 88 74 4 448
CT Arm: 31 57 67 84 72 45 3 359Reduction: 18% 19% 19% 8% 18% 39% 25% 20%
(c) Year-specific data including deaths before and after the cutoffX-ray Arm: 38 70 83 91 89 116 65 552
CT Arm: 31 57 67 84 73 85 70 467Reduction: 18% 19% 19% 8% 18% 27% -8% 15%
cutoff in Table 6–1(c), which confirms our earlier suspicion that the counts were
incomplete starting in year 6. Now with the additional mortality data in year 7, the
reduction in year 6 turns out to be less dramatic – 27% instead of 42%. Although
not all deaths in year 7 had been adjudicated, if a similar fraction of deaths were
adjudicated between the two arms, then it would suggest that the signal had been
fading away by year 7.
The description of all the variables can be found in participant.dictionary.
d091412.rtf, while the ones we use in this chapter are included in Table 6–2.
109
NLST
Age at entry : 55−74
CT : X−ray allocation = 1 : 1
Compliance = 94%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
31
38
57
70
67
83
84
91
73
88
85
117
70
65
Reduction
20%
40%
60%
No. Lung Cancer Deaths
CT CT CT
X−ray X−ray X−ray
Figure 6–5: NLST yearly numbers of lung cancer deaths, corresponding to table6–1(c).
Table 6–2: These are the only variables needed for our model fitting, with descriptionsprovided by the NCI participant dictionary.pid: patient ID, one per patientrndgroup: a binary variable indicating to which arm the participant
was randomized, 1=CT and 2=X-ray.age: age at randomization, in years.death days: days from randomization to death.finaldeathLC: the authoritative variable indicating whether lung cancer was
the cause of death.deathcutoff: a binary variable indicating whether deaths occurred before
the cutoff for the official final analysis of lung cancer mortality.
110
be around 30%, which doubles the 15% reduction achieved with three rounds of
screening in the trial.
One could easily study whether a younger or older age group would benefit
more from early detection, by choosing data on those aged, say, 65 years or younger
at randomization. The fitted curve and the corresponding projection based on 10
rounds of annual screening are shown in Figure 6–6. Our choice of the age group is
rather arbitrary, but this serves as an illustration for other subgroup analyses, such
as splitting by gender, ethnicity group, medical history and so on.
Follow−up year
Reduction
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0 %
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
S S S
S S S S S S S S S S
Fitted (3 rounds)
Projection (10 rounds)
Figure 6–6: Fitted reduction curve (dotted, black) based on the NLST data forpersons aged below 65 at onset of screening and projected curve based on 10 roundsof annual screenings.
113
Summary
• By ignoring the delay until the reductions in mortality are expressed, theprevailing interpretations of the results of cancer screening trialsunder-estimate the mortality reductions that would be produced by asustained screening program
• P-value-driven RCT stopping/reporting rules exacerbate the problem
• We might be able to avoid such misleading estimates if we . . .(i) distinguish a trial from a program(ii) run trials with sufficient rounds of screening and sufficient follow-up(iii) spend major portion of career waiting to measure real reductions(iv) analyze the data using time-specificity / non-proportional hazards(v) focus on parameters describing impact of 1 round of screening(vi) mammography: use data from population-screening, not old trials
FUNDING, CO-ORDINATES, DOWNLOADSNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Le Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2011-2014)........................................................................
James.Hanley@McGill.CAZhihui.Liu@Mail.McGill.CA
www.med.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley
→ r e p r i n t s / talks
BIOSTATISTICS
http:/p: /wwwwwww.mw.mw.mmcgill.ca/ca/a epiepiepiepi-bibbiostosts at-at-aa occh/g/ggrad/bib ostatistit cs/
Why do statisticians commonly limit their inquiries to Averages?
F. Galton, Natural Inheritance, 1889.
“It is difficult to understand why statisticians commonly limittheir inquiries to Averages, and do not revel in morecomprehensive views.
Their souls seem as dull to the charm of variety as that of thenative of one of our flat English counties, whose retrospect ofSwitzerland was that, if its mountains could be thrown into itslakes, two nuisances would be got rid of at once.”
Timing of cholesterol reductions produced by statins
3 dogs at 20 mg/kg/day; 3 at 50 mg/kg/day
Fig. 6. Hypolipidemic effects of mevastatin in dogs. Three dogs received mevastatin for 13 days (from day 0 to day 12) at a dose of 20 mg/kg per day (A) or 50 mgikg per day (B) (Replotted from Fig. 1 of ref. 6). (Used with permission, Atherosclerosis. 1979. 32: 307-313.)
We felt that mevastatin should be evaluated more perti- nently in animal models comparable to FH in humans, since in patients with FH, regulation of HMG-CoA reductase is partially or completely lost, resulting in high reductase activity (42). At that time, however, such an animal model was not available.
The nonionic detergent Triton WR-1339 was shown to produce hypercholesterolemia in rats (66). Using this model, several groups suggested that the elevated levels of hepatic HMG-CoA reductase were responsible for the in- crease in plasma cholesterol (67-69). Mevastatin was found to be slightly effective in these animals, giving up to 21% reduction of plasma cholesterol at 100 mg/kg (70). These results aroused a glimmer of hope, but were still not sufficient.
Commercial eggs contain - 300 mg of cholesterol, and according to our preliminary analyses, two-thirds of this amount of cholesterol is derived from diet and the re- mainder is supplied by de novo synthesis. We expected that the level of cholesterol synthesis in hens that were ac- tively producing eggs would be higher than that in roosters. We fed hens a commercial diet supplemented with 0.1% mevastatin for 30 days. As expected, plasma cholesterol was reduced by as much as 50%, while body weight, diet consumption, and egg production were not significantly changed throughout the experiments (71).
The success in the experiments in hens opened up an opportunity to conduct experiments in dogs and mon- keys. In dogs, mevastatin reduced plasma cholesterol by 30% at a dose of 20 mg/kg and as much as 44% at 50 mg/kg (Fig. 6) (6). &Lipoprotein (LDL) was markedly reduced by mevastatin while a-lipoprotein (HDL) was
not lowered but, rather, increased slightly. In early 1977, we gave mevastatin to monkeys for 11 days. The reduction of plasma cholesterol was 21% at a dose of 20 mg/kg and 36% at 50 mg/kg (Fig. 7) (7). Plasma triglyceride levels were not changed significantly in either dogs or monkeys. Fecal excretion of bile acids was slightly elevated in dogs but not significantly changed in monkeys (6, 7).
Monkey (50 mg/kg/day) 200
"1 , I ; 0
-16 -8 0 8 16 24
Days
Fig. 7. HypoJipidemic effects of mevastatin in cynomolgus monkeys. Three monkeys received mevastatin at a dose of 50 mg/kg per day for 11 days (from day 0 to day 10) (Reproduced from Fig. 1 of ref. 7). (Used with permission, Lipids. 1979. 14: 585-589.)
1574 Journal of Lipid Research Volume 33, 1992
by on April 3, 2010
ww
w.jlr.org
Dow
nloaded from
3 monkeys at 50
Fig. 6. Hypolipidemic effects of mevastatin in dogs. Three dogs received mevastatin for 13 days (from day 0 to day 12) at a dose of 20 mg/kg per day (A) or 50 mgikg per day (B) (Replotted from Fig. 1 of ref. 6). (Used with permission, Atherosclerosis. 1979. 32: 307-313.)
We felt that mevastatin should be evaluated more perti- nently in animal models comparable to FH in humans, since in patients with FH, regulation of HMG-CoA reductase is partially or completely lost, resulting in high reductase activity (42). At that time, however, such an animal model was not available.
The nonionic detergent Triton WR-1339 was shown to produce hypercholesterolemia in rats (66). Using this model, several groups suggested that the elevated levels of hepatic HMG-CoA reductase were responsible for the in- crease in plasma cholesterol (67-69). Mevastatin was found to be slightly effective in these animals, giving up to 21% reduction of plasma cholesterol at 100 mg/kg (70). These results aroused a glimmer of hope, but were still not sufficient.
Commercial eggs contain - 300 mg of cholesterol, and according to our preliminary analyses, two-thirds of this amount of cholesterol is derived from diet and the re- mainder is supplied by de novo synthesis. We expected that the level of cholesterol synthesis in hens that were ac- tively producing eggs would be higher than that in roosters. We fed hens a commercial diet supplemented with 0.1% mevastatin for 30 days. As expected, plasma cholesterol was reduced by as much as 50%, while body weight, diet consumption, and egg production were not significantly changed throughout the experiments (71).
The success in the experiments in hens opened up an opportunity to conduct experiments in dogs and mon- keys. In dogs, mevastatin reduced plasma cholesterol by 30% at a dose of 20 mg/kg and as much as 44% at 50 mg/kg (Fig. 6) (6). &Lipoprotein (LDL) was markedly reduced by mevastatin while a-lipoprotein (HDL) was
not lowered but, rather, increased slightly. In early 1977, we gave mevastatin to monkeys for 11 days. The reduction of plasma cholesterol was 21% at a dose of 20 mg/kg and 36% at 50 mg/kg (Fig. 7) (7). Plasma triglyceride levels were not changed significantly in either dogs or monkeys. Fecal excretion of bile acids was slightly elevated in dogs but not significantly changed in monkeys (6, 7).
Monkey (50 mg/kg/day) 200
"1 , I ; 0
-16 -8 0 8 16 24
Days
Fig. 7. HypoJipidemic effects of mevastatin in cynomolgus monkeys. Three monkeys received mevastatin at a dose of 50 mg/kg per day for 11 days (from day 0 to day 10) (Reproduced from Fig. 1 of ref. 7). (Used with permission, Lipids. 1979. 14: 585-589.)
1574 Journal of Lipid Research Volume 33, 1992
by on April 3, 2010
ww
w.jlr.org
Dow
nloaded from
Timing of cholesterol reductions produced by statins
Humans
The loneliness of the long-distance trialist
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Timing of Screening Effects(as seen in cumulative cause-specific mortality curves)
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
(One-off Screening, MASS)
Control
Arm
Screening
Arm
Prostate Cancer
(q 4y, ERSPC )
Control
Arm
Screening
Arm
Cumulative Cause-Specific Mortality
Follow-Up Year Supp Fig. A
Recommended