Dataset Information

A mathematical model of case-ascertainment bias: Applied to case-control studies nested within a randomized screening trial.

ABSTRACT: When some individuals are screen-detected before the beginning of the study, but otherwise would have been diagnosed symptomatically during the study, this results in different case-ascertainment probabilities among screened and unscreened participants, referred to here as lead-time-biased case-ascertainment (LTBCA). In fact, this issue can arise even in risk-factor studies nested within a randomized screening trial; even though the screening intervention is randomly allocated to trial arms, there is no randomization to potential risk-factors and uptake of screening can differ by risk-factor strata. Under the assumptions that neither screening nor the risk factor affects underlying incidence and no other forms of bias operate, we simulate and compare the underlying cumulative incidence and that observed in the study due to LTBCA. The example used will be constructed from the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian cancer screening trial. The derived mathematical model is applied to simulating two nested studies to evaluate the potential for screening bias in observational lung cancer studies. Because of differential screening under plausible assumptions about preclinical incidence and duration, the simulations presented here show that LTBCA due to chest x-ray screening can significantly increase the estimated risk of lung cancer due to smoking by 1% and 50%. Traditional adjustment methods cannot account for this bias, as the influence screening has on observational study estimates involves events outside of the study observation window (enrollment and follow-up) that change eligibility for potential participants, thus biasing case ascertainment.

SUBMITTER: Jansen RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5858824 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A mathematical model of case-ascertainment bias: Applied to case-control studies nested within a randomized screening trial.

Jansen Rick J RJ Alexander Bruce H BH Hayes Richard B RB Miller Anthony B AB Wacholder Sholom S Church Timothy R TR

PloS one 20180319 3

When some individuals are screen-detected before the beginning of the study, but otherwise would have been diagnosed symptomatically during the study, this results in different case-ascertainment probabilities among screened and unscreened participants, referred to here as lead-time-biased case-ascertainment (LTBCA). In fact, this issue can arise even in risk-factor studies nested within a randomized screening trial; even though the screening intervention is randomly allocated to trial arms, the ...[more]

PMID: 29554151

Similar Datasets

Project description:Pooling biomarker data across multiple studies allows for examination of a wider exposure range than generally possible in individual studies, evaluation of population subgroups and disease subtypes with more statistical power, and more precise estimation of biomarker-disease associations. However, circulating biomarker measurements often require calibration to a single reference assay prior to pooling due to assay and laboratory variability across studies. We propose several methods for calibrating and combining biomarker data from nested case-control studies when reference assay data are obtained from a subset of controls in each contributing study. Specifically, we describe a two-stage calibration method and two aggregated calibration methods, named the internalized and full calibration methods, to evaluate the main effect of the biomarker exposure on disease risk and whether that association is modified by a potential covariate. The internalized method uses the reference laboratory measurement in the analysis when available and otherwise uses the estimated value derived from calibration models. The full calibration method uses calibrated biomarker measurements for all subjects, including those with reference laboratory measurements. Under the two-stage method, investigators complete study-specific analyses in the first stage followed by meta-analysis in the second stage. Our results demonstrate that the full calibration method is the preferred aggregated approach to minimize bias in point estimates. We also observe that the two-stage and full calibration methods provide similar effect and variance estimates but that their variance estimates are slightly larger than those from the internalized approach. As an illustrative example, we apply the three methods in a pooling project of nested case-control studies to evaluate (i) the association between circulating vitamin D levels and risk of stroke and (ii) how body mass index modifies the association between circulating vitamin D levels and risk of cardiovascular disease.

Dataset Information

A mathematical model of case-ascertainment bias: Applied to case-control studies nested within a randomized screening trial.

Publications

A mathematical model of case-ascertainment bias: Applied to case-control studies nested within a randomized screening trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets