1. |
- Gustafsson, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficency of organized and oppurtunistic cytological screening for cancer in situ of the cervix
- 1995
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Cancer. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 72:2, s. 498-505
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cervical cancer incidence and mortality can be reduced by removal of precursor lesions detected at cytological screening. Organised screening, i.e. regular invitation of defined target groups, is generally considered more effective than opportunistic screening. The latter method however, is predominant in most settings. There is no scientific basis for advocating one type of screening or the other. Our aim was to compare the two types and to analyse their efficiency. We analysed 466,275 smears taken in an open cohort of 118,890 women during 1969-88. A computerised database permitted standardised classification of all smears and complete ascertainment of cancer in situ through record linkage. The number of in situ cancers detected per 1000 smears, the detection ratio, was used as an outcome measure both in univariate analyses and in multivariate logistic regression models. Cancer in situ was detected in 1076 women in the study cohort, with a detection ratio of 3.0 at organised and 2.1 at opportunistic screening, yielding an unadjusted odds ratio of 0.69 (95% CI 0.61-0.79). After adjustment for age and time period, the probability of detecting cancer in situ was around 25% higher with opportunistic than with organised screening (OR = 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.46). This difference in favour of opportunistic screening was most pronounced in the first 10 year period and disappeared during the last decade. The difference in efficiency between organised and opportunistic screening in the detection of cancer in situ was slight, if any. The dogma that organised screening is significantly more efficient than the opportunistic type needs reconsideration.
|
|
2. |
- Holmberg, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
A search for recall bias in a case-control study of diet and breast cancer
- 1996
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Epidemiology. - 0300-5771 .- 1464-3685. ; 25:2, s. 235-244
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND. In retrospective studies of dietary habits and breast cancer risk, recall bias is a concern since diet has been publicized as a cause of breast cancer. METHODS. In a case-control study of diet and breast cancer risk nested within a cohort of women screened with mammography, we contrasted answers to a retrospective dietary interview with answers to a dietary questionnaire which was filled out before any diagnostic procedures for breast cancer were undertaken. The source population was all women aged 40-74 in two counties in Sweden invited to mammographic screening and asked to fill out a questionnaire before the screening. Cases and controls were subsequently defined -- matched on age, county of residence, and time of mammography -- and approached for an interview. RESULTS. In all, 265 cases and 431 controls participated in the study. Means of frequencies differed between the agreement in the questionnaire's and the interview's classifications of study subjects into quartiles of monthly intake varied between 31 percent and 57 percent. Kappa statistics in all food groups were below 0.41. In a regression analysis, case subjects with low responses on the questionnaire about intake of meat, snacks, and coffee and tea gave higher responses on interview than did controls who had low questionnaire responses for these food groups. The reverse was also true: cases' responses that were high on the questionnaire were lower on interview for these food groups than were controls' responses. CONCLUSIONS. We found few signs of recall bias, and the few indications of a differential misclassification that we found were not in food groups that have been publicly discussed as causes of breast cancer.
|
|