Endocrine therapies and mortality risk in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: benchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ali Al-Kassab-Córdova, Anna B C Humphreys, Camila Olarte Parra, Maria Feychting, Anthony A Matthews
{"title":"Endocrine therapies and mortality risk in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: benchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial.","authors":"Ali Al-Kassab-Córdova, Anna B C Humphreys, Camila Olarte Parra, Maria Feychting, Anthony A Matthews","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwaf183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Benchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial increases our confidence in the use of observational data for causal inference. The Breast International Group (BIG 1-98) randomized trial compared the effect of letrozole and tamoxifen on the risk of death in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer. We designed a target trial that aimed to ask the same question as the one asked in BIG 1-98 and emulated it in Swedish registry data. The primary results from our observational analysis showed an increased risk of death in those who initiated aromatase inhibitors compared with tamoxifen [5-year risk difference = 2.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-4.6%)], which was discordant to the results from BIG 1-98. However, estimates were more closely aligned when our observational analysis was restricted to non-users of opioids or antidepressants [risk difference = -0.9 (95% CI, -4.2-2.0)]. In conclusion, when benchmarking an observational analysis against a trial, alignment of eligibility criteria with the index trial is not always sufficient and further study population restrictions may be required to address unmeasured confounding.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaf183","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Benchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial increases our confidence in the use of observational data for causal inference. The Breast International Group (BIG 1-98) randomized trial compared the effect of letrozole and tamoxifen on the risk of death in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer. We designed a target trial that aimed to ask the same question as the one asked in BIG 1-98 and emulated it in Swedish registry data. The primary results from our observational analysis showed an increased risk of death in those who initiated aromatase inhibitors compared with tamoxifen [5-year risk difference = 2.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-4.6%)], which was discordant to the results from BIG 1-98. However, estimates were more closely aligned when our observational analysis was restricted to non-users of opioids or antidepressants [risk difference = -0.9 (95% CI, -4.2-2.0)]. In conclusion, when benchmarking an observational analysis against a trial, alignment of eligibility criteria with the index trial is not always sufficient and further study population restrictions may be required to address unmeasured confounding.

绝经后乳腺癌妇女的内分泌治疗和死亡风险:针对随机试验的基准观察分析。
对照随机试验对观察性分析进行基准测试,增加了我们对使用观察性数据进行因果推理的信心。乳腺国际组织(BIG 1-98)的随机试验比较了来曲唑和他莫昔芬对绝经后激素受体阳性乳腺癌妇女死亡风险的影响。我们设计了一项目标试验,旨在提出与BIG 1-98中提出的问题相同的问题,并在瑞典注册数据中进行了模拟。我们观察性分析的主要结果显示,与他莫昔芬相比,使用芳香酶抑制剂的患者死亡风险增加[5年风险差异= 2.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-4.6%)],这与BIG 1-98的结果不一致。然而,当我们的观察性分析仅限于非阿片类药物或抗抑郁药使用者时,估计结果更接近一致[风险差异= -0.9 (95% CI, -4.2-2.0)]。总之,当对一项试验进行观察性分析时,将合格标准与指标试验相一致并不总是足够的,可能需要进一步的研究人群限制来解决未测量的混杂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信