Abstract
Observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of cancer screening are often biased due to non-alignment at time zero, which can be avoided by target trial emulation (TTE). We aimed to illustrate this by evaluating site-specific effectiveness of screening colonoscopy regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence.
Based on a German health care database, we assessed the effect of screening colonoscopy vs. no screening colonoscopy in preventing CRC in the distal and the proximal colon over 12 years of follow-up in 55–69-year-old persons. We compared four different study designs: cohort and case-control study, each with/without alignment at time zero.
In both analyses with time zero-alignment, screening colonoscopy showed a rather similar effectiveness in reducing the incidence of distal and proximal CRC (cohort analysis: 32% (95% CI: 27-37%) vs. 28% (20-35%); case-control analysis: 27% vs. 33%). Both analyses without alignment suggested a difference by site: Incidence reduction regarding distal and proximal CRC, respectively, was 65% (61-68%) vs. 37% (31-43%) in the cohort analysis and 77% (67-84%) vs. 46% (25-61%) in the case-control analysis.
Violations of basic design principles can substantially bias the results of observational studies. In our example, it falsely suggested a much stronger preventive effect of colonoscopy in the distal vs. the proximal colon. Our study illustrates that TTE avoids such design-induced biases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
BIPS intramural funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
In Germany, the utilisation of health insurance data for scientific research is regulated by the Code of Social Law. All involved health insurance providers as well as the German Federal Office for Social Security and the Senator for Health, Women and Consumer Protection in Bremen as their responsible authorities approved the use of GePaRD data for this study. Informed consent for studies based on claims data is required by law unless obtaining consent appears unacceptable and would bias results, which was the case in this study. According to the Ethics Committee of the University of Bremen studies based on GePaRD are exempt from institutional review board review.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This revised version of the manuscript incorporates reviewer comments from the first round of blinded peer-review.
