Cargando…

The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—A cautionary tale

Two randomized trials were conducted in Canada in the 1980s to test the efficacy of breast cancer screening. Neither of the trials demonstrated benefit. Concerns were raised regarding serious errors in trial design and conduct. Here we describe the conditions that could allow subversion of randomiza...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yaffe, Martin J, Seely, Jean M., Gordon, Paula B., Appavoo, Shushiela, Kopans, Daniel B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8892036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34812692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413211059461
_version_ 1784662050992029696
author Yaffe, Martin J
Seely, Jean M.
Gordon, Paula B.
Appavoo, Shushiela
Kopans, Daniel B.
author_facet Yaffe, Martin J
Seely, Jean M.
Gordon, Paula B.
Appavoo, Shushiela
Kopans, Daniel B.
author_sort Yaffe, Martin J
collection PubMed
description Two randomized trials were conducted in Canada in the 1980s to test the efficacy of breast cancer screening. Neither of the trials demonstrated benefit. Concerns were raised regarding serious errors in trial design and conduct. Here we describe the conditions that could allow subversion of randomization to occur and the inclusion of many symptomatic women in a screening trial. We examine anomalies in data where the balance would be expected between trial arms. “Open book” randomization and performance of clinical breast examination on all women before allocation to a trial arm allowed women with palpable findings to be mis-randomized into the mammography arm. Multiple indicators raising suspicion of subversion are present including a large excess in poor-prognosis cancers in the mammography trial arm at prevalence screen. Personnel described shifting of women from the control group into the mammography group. There is compelling evidence of subversion of randomization in Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Mis-randomization of even a few women with advanced breast cancer could markedly affect measured screening efficacy. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study trials should not influence breast screening policies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8892036
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88920362022-03-04 The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—A cautionary tale Yaffe, Martin J Seely, Jean M. Gordon, Paula B. Appavoo, Shushiela Kopans, Daniel B. J Med Screen Commentaries Two randomized trials were conducted in Canada in the 1980s to test the efficacy of breast cancer screening. Neither of the trials demonstrated benefit. Concerns were raised regarding serious errors in trial design and conduct. Here we describe the conditions that could allow subversion of randomization to occur and the inclusion of many symptomatic women in a screening trial. We examine anomalies in data where the balance would be expected between trial arms. “Open book” randomization and performance of clinical breast examination on all women before allocation to a trial arm allowed women with palpable findings to be mis-randomized into the mammography arm. Multiple indicators raising suspicion of subversion are present including a large excess in poor-prognosis cancers in the mammography trial arm at prevalence screen. Personnel described shifting of women from the control group into the mammography group. There is compelling evidence of subversion of randomization in Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Mis-randomization of even a few women with advanced breast cancer could markedly affect measured screening efficacy. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study trials should not influence breast screening policies. SAGE Publications 2021-11-23 2022-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8892036/ /pubmed/34812692 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413211059461 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Commentaries
Yaffe, Martin J
Seely, Jean M.
Gordon, Paula B.
Appavoo, Shushiela
Kopans, Daniel B.
The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—A cautionary tale
title The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—A cautionary tale
title_full The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—A cautionary tale
title_fullStr The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—A cautionary tale
title_full_unstemmed The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—A cautionary tale
title_short The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—A cautionary tale
title_sort randomized trial of mammography screening that was not—a cautionary tale
topic Commentaries
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8892036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34812692
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09691413211059461
work_keys_str_mv AT yaffemartinj therandomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT seelyjeanm therandomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT gordonpaulab therandomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT appavooshushiela therandomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT kopansdanielb therandomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT yaffemartinj randomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT seelyjeanm randomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT gordonpaulab randomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT appavooshushiela randomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale
AT kopansdanielb randomizedtrialofmammographyscreeningthatwasnotacautionarytale