Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
LetterLetter

Response

Danielle Kasperavicius, Neil R. Bell, Roland Grad, James A. Dickinson, Ainsley Elizabeth Moore, Harminder Singh, Brett D. Thombs and Brenda J. Wilson
Canadian Family Physician November 2017; 63 (11) 828-830;
Danielle Kasperavicius
Toronto, Ont
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neil R. Bell
Edmonton, Alta
MD SM CCFP FCFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roland Grad
Montreal, Que
MD CM MSc CCFP FCFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James A. Dickinson
Calgary, Alta
MB BS CCFP PhD FRACGP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ainsley Elizabeth Moore
Hamilton, Ont
MD MSc CCFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harminder Singh
Winnipeg, Man
MD MPH FRCPC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brett D. Thombs
Montreal, Que
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brenda J. Wilson
Ottawa, Ont
MB ChB MSc MRCP(UK) FFPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Dr Dermer highlights a central issue in decision making on preventive cancer screening: How appropriate are overall mortality and disease-specific mortality as outcome measures?1 This issue is important for family physicians because these measures provide the information needed for discussions with patients on the potential benefits associated with screening. The potential benefits need to be weighed against potential harms. Further, screening decisions occur in an environment where many patients and physicians overestimate the benefits of screening and there are strong messages from professional organizations and advocacy groups emphasizing the value of screening.

In his letter1 regarding our article,2 Dr Dermer adds to previous debate on the advantages and disadvantages of overall mortality and disease-specific mortality as outcome measures to inform decision making in preventive cancer screening.3–6 In contrast to Dr Dermer, who questions the use of disease-specific mortality, we believe that both disease-specific mortality and overall mortality can inform decision making in preventive cancer screening when the quality of evidence and the limitations of each of these outcome measures is considered.

We agree that overall mortality is conceptually appealing as a benchmark outcome measure because it answers the crucial question of whether screening improves overall survival.3,4,6 However, there are several important limitations to this particular outcome measure.3,4,7 First, because of the very large number of potential causes of mortality, detecting the influence of any one factor on overall mortality would require data from an exceptionally large number of people. In this context, preventive screening trials might generate reasonably precise information on disease-specific mortality, but they are generally underpowered to determine with any precision the likely influence on overall mortality. Examples include screening for colon or prostate cancer. No trials of screening for colon cancer have examined results from more than 192 000 patients. However, it has been estimated that a trial powered to detect overall mortality for colorectal cancer would require 4.1 million participants and cost upward of $1 billion.3,8 Political, financial, and logistic barriers would make it extremely difficult to conduct such a trial. Second, overall mortality is population specific and might be highly influenced by nontumour factors, such as age and comorbid conditions, that make it difficult to compare across populations or geographic regions.7 Finally, overall mortality might not provide information on the potential benefits of treatment related to the specific cancer for which screening is offered.5,7

Measurement of disease-specific mortality attempts to answer the question of whether early detection has a true effect on the natural course of the disease. This outcome measure can provide a strong rationale to participate in screening that has the potential to prevent cancer death for the screened condition. Disease-specific mortality avoids competing causes of mortality and allows comparisons across time periods and regions.5,7 Disease-specific mortality also has substantial limitations. First, there are often difficulties in assigning the cause of death, especially in patients with multiple comorbid conditions, which can lead to bias. Second, it is difficult to measure harms, including death, resulting directly from screening itself. Therefore, there should be transparency in the manner in which deaths related to the invasive processes of screening and overdiagnosis are identified and reported in cancer screening trials.3,6,7

How then should family physicians consider overall mortality and disease-specific mortality in decision making about preventive cancer screening? In circumstances where both disease-specific mortality and overall mortality show no benefit or there is an increase in overall mortality, clearly we should not offer screening. In other situations where both overall mortality and disease-specific mortality show benefit it would be reasonable to consider preventive cancer screening, but only after consideration of the associated harms and benefits. Finally, when there is benefit in disease-specific mortality without any demonstrated benefit in overall mortality, we should consider a process of shared decision making, which reflects the uncertainty about benefits, potential harms, and values and preferences of individual patients.

We disagree with Dr Dermer on the concern that patient preferences and values represent a problem for shared decision making. We believe that in achieving a patient-informed decision, it is the role of family physicians to elicit those values and preferences and then ensure that these values and preferences are considered in the context of objectively presented evidence on harms and benefits. This is especially important in circumstances where there is a close balance between harms and benefits, uncertainty about the presence of benefits, and potential variation in patient preferences and values. These discussions are likely to be most effective when supported by well designed patient decision aids or other knowledge translation tools that present information on the benefits and harms of screening in a format that is easily understood by patients.

We thank Dr Dermer for raising this important issue in preventive cancer screening and providing his insights and thoughts for others to consider. We invite further discussion and comments on this issue.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    None of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care members has any relevant financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Dermer M
    . Using disease-specific mortality in discussions with patients [Letters]. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:828.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bell NR,
    2. Grad R,
    3. Dickinson JA,
    4. Singh H,
    5. Moore AE,
    6. Kasperavicius D,
    7. et al
    . Better decision making in preventive health screening. Balancing benefits and harms. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:521-4. (Eng), 525–8 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Prasad V,
    2. Lenzer J,
    3. Newman DH
    . Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save lives”—and what we can do about it. BMJ 2016;352:h6080.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Black WC,
    2. Haggstrom DA,
    3. Welch HG
    . All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(3):167-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Steele RJ,
    2. Brewster DH
    . Should we use total mortality rather than cancer specific mortality to judge cancer screening programmes? No. BMJ 2011;343:d6397.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Penston J
    . Should we use total mortality rather than cancer specific mortality to judge cancer screening programmes? Yes. BMJ 2011;343:d6395.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Alibhai SM
    . Cancer screening: the importance of outcome measures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2006;57(3):215-24. Epub 2005 Dec 20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Baker SG,
    2. Kramer BS,
    3. Prorok PC
    . Statistical issues in randomized trials of cancer screening. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 63 (11)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 63, Issue 11
1 Nov 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Response
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Response
Danielle Kasperavicius, Neil R. Bell, Roland Grad, James A. Dickinson, Ainsley Elizabeth Moore, Harminder Singh, Brett D. Thombs, Brenda J. Wilson
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2017, 63 (11) 828-830;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Response
Danielle Kasperavicius, Neil R. Bell, Roland Grad, James A. Dickinson, Ainsley Elizabeth Moore, Harminder Singh, Brett D. Thombs, Brenda J. Wilson
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2017, 63 (11) 828-830;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Comprendre et expliquer le risque: Mesurer les resultats et lampleur des bienfaits et des prejudices
  • Understanding and communicating risk: Measures of outcome and the magnitude of benefits and harms
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Concern is not based on evidence
  • Rural maternity care
Show more Letter

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2025 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire