European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 73–78 | Cite as

Confounding by dietary factors in case–control studies on the efficacy of cancer screening in Japan

  • Ko-Jun Suzuki
  • Shigeyuki Nakaji
  • Shoji Tokunaga
  • Tadashi Umeda
  • Kazuo Sugawara
Article

Abstract

Evaluation of cancer screening using case–control studies is less valid in comparison to randomized controlled trails, due to the intrusion of a possible self-selection bias in the former. The randomized controlled trial approach, however, may be difficult in developed countries where mass cancer screening programs are already being performed nationally. Accordingly, case–control studies are often performed instead of randomized controlled trials. In case–control studies, no reports could be found in the literature using dietary habit, an important influencing factor in carcinogenesis, as an adjusting item. We surveyed nutrition and food intake status through a nutrition survey using the weighing method, and smoking prevalence and alcohol consumption with questionnaires in the general population in northern Japan, in subjects over 30 years of age. We then compared these results among non-participants and participants in cancer screening programs, and evaluated how any differences between the two groups might affect the results of case–control studies. Non-participants had a significantly lower intake of vegetables, carotene, vitamin C, and dietary fiber, which are thought to be beneficial factors in the prevention of carcinogenesis. Non-participants had a significantly higher cigarette smoking prevalence than participants. In relation to the intake of vegetables, a difference between participants and non-participants was evident, as proper adjustment for vegetable intake led to an odds ratio closer to the null value. The value of the odds ratio will probably not decrease, but it might increase when other dietary factors or smoking are taken into consideration.

Keywords

Case–control study Efficacy Mass screening for cancer Odds ratio 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Flehinger, BJ, Kimmel, M, Polyak, T, Melamed, MR 1993Screening for lung cancer. The Mayo Lung Project revisitedCancer7215731580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fontana, RS, Sanderson, DR, Woolner, LB,  et al. 1991Screening for lung cancer. A critique of the Mayo Lung Project. Cancer6711551164(4 Suppl)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Melamed, MR, Flehinger, BJ 1987Detection of lung cancer: Highlights of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Study in New York City.Schweiz Med Wochenschr11714571463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mandel, JS, Bond, JH, Church, TR,  et al. 1993Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control StudyN Engl J Med32813651371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson, I, Aspegren, K, Janzon, L,  et al. 1988Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: The Malmo mammographic screening trialBr Med J297943948Google Scholar
  6. Oshima, A, Hirata, N, Ubukata, T, Umeda, K, Fujimoto, I 1986Evaluation of a mass screening program for stomach cancer with a case–control study designInt J Cancer38829833PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fukao, A, Tsubono, Y, Tsuji, I, Hisamichi, S, Sugahara, N, Takano, A 1995The evaluation of screening for gastric cancer in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan: A population-based case–control studyInt J Cancer604548PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Abe, Y, Mitsushima, T, Nagatani, K, Ikuma, H, Minamihara, Y 1995Epidemiological evaluation of the protective effect for dying of stomach cancer by screening program of stomach cancer with applying a method of case–control study–A study of an efficient screening program for stomach cancerJpn J Gastroenterol92836845(in Japanese)Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, EA, Anderson, TW 1979Does screening by “Pap” smears help prevent cervical cancer? A case–control studyLancet214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Macgregor, JE, Moss, SM, Parkin, DM, Day, NE 1985A case–control study of cervical cancer screening in north east ScotlandBr Med J29015431546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geirsson, G, Kristiansdottir, R, Sigurdsson, K, Moss, S, Tulinius, H 1986Cervical cancer screening in Iceland: A case–control study.IARC Sci Publ763741PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sobue, T, Suzuki, T, Hashimoto, S, Yokoi, N, Fujimoto, I 1988A case–control study of the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in Osaka, Japan.Jpn J Cancer Res7912691275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sobue, T, Suzuki, T, Naruke, T 1992A case–control study for evaluating lung-cancer screening in Japan. Japanese Lung-Cancer-Screening Research Group.Int J Cancer50230237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Verbeek, AL, Hendriks, JH, Holland, R, Mravunac, M, Sturmans, F, Day, NE 1984Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. First results of the Nijmegen project, 1975–1981.Lancet112221224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Collette, HJ, Day, NE, Rombach, JJ, Waard, F 1984Evaluation of screening for breast cancer in a non-randomised study (the DOM project) by means of a case–control study.Lancet112241226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Palli, D, Turco, MR, Buiatti, E,  et al. 1986A case–control study of the efficacy of a non-randomized breast cancer screening program in Florence (Italy).Int J Cancer38501504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hisamichi S (ed), Research Committee of studies on the reasonable system of mass screening for colorectal cancer and it’s accuracy of Annual Report of the Cancer Research Ministry of Health and Welfare 1990; Sendai: Department of Public Health, Tohoku University School of Medicine, 1991: 11.Google Scholar
  18. Selby, JV, Friedman, GD, Quesenberry, CP,Jr, Weiss, NS 1993Effect of fecal occult blood testing on mortality from colorectal cancer. A case–control study.Ann Intern Med11816PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Saito, H, Soma, Y, Koeda, J,  et al. 1995Reduction in risk of mortality from colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood screening with immunochemical hemagglutination test. A case–control study.Int J Cancer61465469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, Food, nutrition, and the prevention of cancer: A global perspective. Washington DC, 1997Google Scholar
  21. Tokunaga, S, Hirohata, T, Hirohata, I 1994Reproducibility of dietary and other data from a self-administered questionnaire.Environ Health Perspect102510(Suppl 8)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Section of Nutrition, Bureau of Public Health, Ministry of Health and Welfare1948–2000National Nutrition Survey, 1946–1998.Daiichi Publishing Co.Tokyo(in Japanese)Google Scholar
  23. Breslow, NE, Day, NE 1980Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Vol 1, The analysis of case–control studies.IARCLyonGoogle Scholar
  24. Jain, M, Burch, JD, Howe, GR, Risch, HA, Miller, AB 1990Dietary factors and risk of lung cancer: results from a case–control study, Toronto, 1981–1985.Int J Cancer45287293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fukao, A, Hisamichi, S, Komatsu, S,  et al. 1992Comparison of characteristics between frequent participants and non-participants in screening program for stomach cancer.Tohoku J Exp Med166459469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kato, I, Tominaga, S, Naruhashi, H 1986Characteristics of the participants of stomach cancer screening testJpn J Pub Heal33749753(in Japanese).Google Scholar
  27. Kato, I, Tominaga, S, Matsuoka, I 1987Characteristics of participants of uterine cancer screening test.Jpn J Pub Heal34748754(in Japanese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ko-Jun Suzuki
    • 1
  • Shigeyuki Nakaji
    • 1
  • Shoji Tokunaga
    • 2
  • Tadashi Umeda
    • 1
  • Kazuo Sugawara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HygieneHirosaki University School of MedicineHirosakiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Preventive Medicine, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations