ArticleStatistics in medicine2018
Estimating lead-time bias in lung cancer diagnosis of patients with previous cancers.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients with versus without prior cancer.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Association of cancer screening and residing in a coal-polluted East Asian region with overall survival of lung cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Circular RNATranslational cancer research · 2020Article
- Cancer cases detected in the prevention and control service of a private cancer clinic in Peru.Infectious agents and cancer · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Surprisingly, survival from a diagnosis of lung cancer has been found to be longer for those who experienced a previous cancer than for those with no previous cancer. A possible explanation is lead-time bias, which, by advancing the time of diagnosis, apparently extends survival among those with a previous cancer even when they enjoy no real clinical advantage. We propose a discrete parametric model to jointly describe survival in a no-previous-cancer group (where, by definition, lead-time bias cannot exist) and in a previous-cancer group (where lead-time bias is possible). We model the lead time with a negative binomial distribution and the post-lead-time survival with a linear spline on the logit hazard scale, which allows for survival to differ between groups even in the absence of bias; we denote our model Logit-Spline/Negative Binomial. We fit Logit-Spline/Negative Binomial to a propensity-score matched subset of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data set, conducting sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of key assumptions. With lung cancer-specific death as the end point, the estimated mean lead time is roughly 11 months for stage I&II patients; with overall survival, it is roughly 3.4 months in stage I&II. For patients with higher-stage lung cancers, the mean lead time is 1 month or less for both outcomes. Accounting for lead-time bias reduces the survival advantage of the previous-cancer group when one exists, but it does not nullify it in all cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.