EPIB-591 Screening
description
Transcript of EPIB-591 Screening
![Page 1: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
EPIB-591Screening
Jean-François Boivin29 September 2010
![Page 2: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
![Page 3: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Definition
SCREENING Screening was defined in 1951 by the US Commission on Chronic Illness as,
Last JM. A dictionary of epidemiology. Third edition.
“The presumptive identification of unrecognized disease or defect by the application of tests, examinations or other procedures which can be applied rapidly.
Screening tests sort out apparently well persons who probably have a disease from those who probably do not.
A screening test is not intended to be diagnostic. Persons with positive or suspicious findings must be referred to their physicians for diagnosis and necessary treatment.
![Page 4: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Screening: criteria
1. Disease is important (severity, frequency)
2. Pre-clinical phase3. Test is available, valid (sensitive,
specific), reliable, acceptable4. Early intervention effective5. Acceptable balance harm-benefits6. Cost-effective7. Ethics, social acceptability
Institut national de santé publique, Québec, 2009
![Page 5: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
![Page 6: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
![Page 7: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
![Page 8: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
![Page 9: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
NEJM, vol 339, #13, page 915
![Page 10: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
The case fatality rate is the proportion of people, among those who develop a disease, who then proceed to die from the disease. Thus, the population at risk when a case fatality rate is used is the population of people who have already developed the disease. The event being measured is not development of the disease but rather death from the disease
Rothman 2002. Page 28
![Page 11: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Mortality
Mortality is the incidence of fatal cases of a disease in the population at risk for dying of the disease.
Fatality refers to the incidence of death from a disease among persons who develop the disease. The difference between fatality and mortality is in their denominators. Fatality reflects the prognosis of the disease among cases, while mortality reflects the burden of deaths from the disease in the population as a whole.
Case fatality = Number of fatal cases Total number of cases
Koepsell-Weiss, Pages 50-51
![Page 12: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Case-fatality rate
See also Friis and Sellers
Page 455
![Page 13: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
LEAD TIME BIAS:
X XNo Screening Clinical diagnosis Death
X X X Screening Death
disease is detected earlier
13
4 years
4 years3 years
Lead time
Survival of cases (case fatality) appears longer after screening
![Page 14: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Years
No screening
X X
Rate = 1 death / 20 person-years
Screening
Clinical diagnosis Death
X XDeath
Screendetected
Rate = 1 death / 20 person-years
Mortality analysis
![Page 15: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
LEAD TIME BIAS:
X XNo Screening Clinical diagnosis Death
X X X Screening Death
4 years
4 years3 years
Lead timeImproved survival
![Page 16: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Length biased samplingDurations of pre-clinical cases
Screening
Prevalence = f (incidence, duration)
Years
![Page 17: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
![Page 18: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Background: The Mayo Lung Project (MLP) was a randomized, controlled clinical trial of lung cancer screening that was conducted in 9211 male smokers between 1971 and 1983. The intervention arm was offered chest x-ray and sputum cytology every 4 months for 6 years; the usual-care arm was advised at trial entry to receive the same tests annually.
Results: The median follow-up time was 20.5 years. Lung cancer mortality was 4.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.9–4.9) deaths per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 3.9 (95% CI = 3.5–4.4) in the usual-care arm.
The median survival for patients with resected early-stage disease was 16.0 years in the intervention arm versus 5.0 years in the usual-care arm.
Conclusions: Extended follow- up of MLP participants did not reveal a lung cancer mortality reduction for the intervention arm.
![Page 19: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Figure 2. Survival of patients diagnosed with lung cancer prior to July 1, 1983
Case-fatality
![Page 20: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Table 2. Mortality in the Mayo Lung Project, as of December 31, 1996
Lung Cancer
All causes
![Page 21: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
![Page 22: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
The Lancet Vol 348 – November 30 1996
Case-fatality
![Page 23: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
The Lancet Vol 348 – November 30 1996
Mortality rates
![Page 24: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
![Page 25: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Equity
Ubel PA, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints. NEJM 1996; 334:1174-1177
→ 568 jurors, 74 ethicists, 73 decision making experts
→ Screening for colon cancer
![Page 26: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Test # 1
• Cheaper
• Less effective
• Applied to 100% of population
• Saves 1000 lives
Test # 2
• More expensive
• More effective
• Applied to 50% of population (random selection)
• Saves 1100 lives
Total cost # 1 = Total cost # 2
![Page 27: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
![Page 28: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
First results in a long-term investigation to determine whether periodic breast cancer screening with mammography and clinical examination leads to lowered breast cancer mortality provide grounds for cautious optimism. The study compares the experience in a random sample of 31,000 women, aged 40 to 64 years, offered screening examinations with the experience in a similarly constituted "control" group. There were 52 deaths due to breast cancer in the control group, as compared with 31 breast cancer deaths in the study group, in the period available for follow-up.
The 3 1/2-year case fatality rates among women with histologically confirmed breast cancers reinforce the impression that screening leads to lowered mortality. More time, possibly ten years of follow-up, is needed to establish whether the effect of the screening program is short-term or long-term.
![Page 29: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
![Page 30: EPIB-591 Screening](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081505/56816733550346895ddbe0d3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Estimated Benefits and Harms Associated with a 10-Year Course of Screening Mammography for
2500 Women Who Are 50 Years of Age.
Welch HG. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1276-1278.
30