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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |