Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Screening for lung cancer: do we need randomized trials?

O S Miettinen1

  • 1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. osm@epid.lan.mcgill.ca

Cancer
|January 9, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Screening for breast cancer: what truly is the benefit?

Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique·2014
Same author

Etiologic study vis-à-vis intervention study.

European journal of epidemiology·2010
Same author

Screening for a cancer: thinking before rethinking.

European journal of epidemiology·2010
Same author

Ignoring critique, attacking the critic.

European journal of epidemiology·2010
Same author

Early lung cancer action project: annual screening using single-slice helical CT.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences·2002
Same author

The modern scientific physician: 7. Theory of medicine.

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne·2002

A scientifically ideal randomized controlled trial (RCT) for lung cancer screening can be replicated by a noncomparative study. This approach avoids overdiagnosis and provides comprehensive curability data, unlike ethically constrained RCTs.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Medical Screening
  • Clinical Trial Design

Background:

  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are standard for evaluating screening efficacy.
  • Ethical considerations often limit ideal RCT designs in screening studies.
  • Previous studies have focused on comparing screening versus no screening.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the efficacy of lung cancer screening.
  • To understand how earlier intervention impacts curability based on disease stage and tumor size.
  • To assess the distribution of disease stage and tumor size at diagnosis under different screening regimens.

Main Methods:

  • A scientifically ideal RCT would randomize screened cases to immediate intervention or delayed intervention.
  • An alternative noncomparative study design involves all participants undergoing screening and early intervention.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Avoiding overdiagnosis is crucial, requiring documentation of tumor growth before biopsy.

    • Main Results:

    • Ethically feasible RCTs compromise the study's objectives and introduce validity issues.
    • Ethical RCTs are significantly less efficient than ideal designs.
    • Noncomparative studies, when designed to avoid overdiagnosis, can yield similar information to ideal RCTs.

    Conclusions:

    • Noncomparative studies can effectively assess lung cancer screening efficacy and curability.
    • Careful design is needed to avoid overdiagnosis in noncomparative screening studies.
    • Ethically constrained RCTs provide limited insights compared to ideal or well-designed noncomparative studies.