Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004 96(16):1204-1207; doi:10.1093/jnci/djh229
© 2004 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wacholder, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wacholder, S.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Memo to the Media
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2004 Oxford University Press

COMMENTARY

Bias in Intervention Studies That Enroll Patients From High-Risk Clinics

Sholom Wacholder

Correspondence to: Sholom Wacholder, PhD, Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892-7244 (e-mail: wacholder{at}nih.gov)

It is important to evaluate the effects of proposed interventions to reduce the risk of disease among carriers of a highly penetrant mutation, such as the mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for breast and ovarian cancers or in APC and MLH1 or MSH2 for colon cancer. However, some studies that evaluate the effects of interventions designed to reduce risk in mutation carriers may be susceptible to a serious selection bias when they are based in clinics that care for persons at high risk for the disease. A study design in which a large fraction of the case patients were diagnosed before being seen at the clinic and all control subjects are persons previously seen at the clinic can create a false impression of intervention efficacy if, as is likely, mutation carriers seen at the clinic were more likely to receive the intervention than mutation carriers in the general population.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related Memo to the Media

Press Release: Intervention Studies That Use Cancer Patients from High-Risk Clinics May Be Subject to Bias
Sarah L. Zielinski
J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 96: 1191. [Extract] [Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
J. L. Kramer, I. A. Velazquez, B. E. Chen, P. S. Rosenberg, J. P. Struewing, and M. H. Greene
Prophylactic Oophorectomy Reduces Breast Cancer Penetrance During Prospective, Long-Term Follow-Up of BRCA1 Mutation Carriers
J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2005; 23(34): 8629 - 8635.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
T. R. Rebbeck, T. Friebel, T. Wagner, H. T. Lynch, J. E. Garber, M. B. Daly, C. Isaacs, O. I. Olopade, S. L. Neuhausen, L. van 't Veer, et al.
Effect of Short-Term Hormone Replacement Therapy on Breast Cancer Risk Reduction After Bilateral Prophylactic Oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: The PROSE Study Group
J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2005; 23(31): 7804 - 7810.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.