• Laura Buschmann, Ina Wellmann, Nadine Bonberg, Jürgen Wellmann, Hans-Werner Hense, André Karch, and Heike Minnerup.
• Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. laura.buschmann@ukmuenster.de.
• Bmc Med. 2024 Jan 30; 22 (1): 4343.

BackgroundMammography screening programmes (MSP) aim to reduce breast cancer mortality by shifting diagnoses to earlier stages. However, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of current MSP because analyses can only rely on observational data, comparing women who participate in screening with women who do not. These comparisons are subject to several biases: one of the most important is self-selection into the MSP, which introduces confounding and is difficult to control for. Here, we propose an approach to quantify confounding based on breast cancer survival analyses using readily available routine data sources.MethodsUsing data from the Cancer Registry of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, we estimate the relative contribution of confounding to the observed survival benefit of participants of the German MSP. This is accomplished by comparing non-participants, participants with screen-detected and participants with interval breast cancers for the endpoints "death from breast cancer" and "death from all causes other than breast cancer" - the latter being assumed to be unrelated to any MSP effect. By using different contrasts, we eliminate the effects of stage shift, lead and length time bias. The association of breast cancer detection mode with survival is analysed using Cox models in 68,230 women, aged 50-69 years, with breast cancer diagnosed in 2006-2014 and followed up until 2018.ResultsThe hazard of dying from breast cancer was lower in participants with screen-detected cancer than in non-participants (HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.20-0.22), but biased by lead and length time bias, and confounding. When comparing participants with interval cancers and non-participants, the survival advantage was considerably smaller (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.58-0.66), due to the elimination of stage shift and lead time bias. Finally, considering only mortality from causes other than breast cancer in the latter comparison, length time bias was minimised, but a survival advantage was still present (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.56-0.70), which we attribute to confounding.ConclusionsThis study shows that, in addition to stage shift, lead and length time bias, confounding is an essential component when comparing the survival of MSP participants and non-participants. We further show that the confounding effect can be quantified without explicit knowledge of potential confounders by using a negative control outcome.© 2024. The Author(s).

16 keywords...

hide…