Search

Background: Among randomized trials evaluating flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) for its effect on colorectal cancer mortality, only the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial screened its participants more than one time. We report outcomes from the PLCO screening FSG program and evaluate the increased yield produced by a second FSG.Methods: Participants were screened by 60-cm FSG in 10 regional screening centers at study entry and 3 or 5 years later, depending on the time of random assignment. Results from subsequent diagnostic intervention were tracked and recorded in a standardized fashion, and outcomes were compared according to sex and age. The protocol discouraged repeat FSG in persons with colorectal cancer or adenoma diagnosed after the initial FSG.Results: Of 77 447 enrollees, 67 073 (86.6%) had at least one FSG and 39 443 (50.9%) had two FSGs. Diagnostic intervention occurred in 74.9% after a positive first FSG and in 78.7% after a positive repeat FSG. The second FSG increased the screening yield by 32%: Colorectal cancer or advanced adenoma was detected in 37.8 per 1000 persons after first screening and in 49.8 per 1000 persons after all screenings. The second FSG increased the yield of cancer or advanced adenoma by 26% in women and by 34% in men. Of 223 subjects who received a diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma within 1 year of a positive FSG, 64.6% had stage I and 17.5% had stage II disease.Conclusions: Repeat FSG increased the detection of colorectal cancer or advanced adenoma in women by one-fourth and in men by one-third. Screen-detected carcinomas were early stage (stage I or II) in greater than 80% of screened persons. Colorectal cancer mortality data from the PLCO, as the definitive endpoint, will follow in later publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use a single, easily obtainable biospecimen, such as blood, to screen for more than one cancer concurrently. MCD tests can potentially be used to improve early cancer detection, including cancers that currently lack effective screening methods. However, these tests have unknown and unquantified benefits and harms. MCD tests differ from conventional cancer screening tests in that the organ responsible for a positive test is unknown, and a broad diagnostic workup may be necessary to confirm the location and type of underlying cancer. Among two prospective studies involving greater than 16,000 individuals, MCD tests identified those who had some cancers without currently recommended screening tests, including pancreas, ovary, liver, uterus, small intestine, oropharyngeal, bone, thyroid, and hematologic malignancies, at early stages. Reported MCD test sensitivities range from 27% to 95% but differ by organ and are lower for early stage cancers, for which treatment toxicity would be lowest and the potential for cure might be highest. False reassurance from a negative MCD result may reduce screening adherence, risking a loss in proven public health benefits from standard-of-care screening. Prospective clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties about MCD accuracy to detect different cancers in asymptomatic individuals, whether these tests can detect cancer sufficiently early for effective treatment and mortality reduction, the degree to which these tests may contribute to cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, whether MCD tests work equally well across all populations, and the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and follow-up for patients with a positive test., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Blood-based assays using various technologies and biomarkers are in commercial development for the purpose of detecting multiple cancer types concurrently at an early stage of disease. These multicancer early detection (MCED) assays have the potential to improve the detection of cancers, particularly those for which no current screening modality exists. However, the unknown clinical benefits and harms of using MCED assays for cancer screening necessitate the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain their clinical effectiveness. This was the consensus of experts at a National Cancer Institute-hosted workshop to discuss initial design concepts for such a trial. Using these assays to screen simultaneously for multiple cancers poses novel uncertainties for patient care compared with conventional screening tests for single cancers, such as establishing the diagnostic workup to confirm the presence of cancer at any organ site; clarifying appropriate follow-up for a positive assay for which there is no definitive diagnosis; identifying potential harms such as overdiagnosis of indolent disease; determining clinically effective and efficient strategies for disseminating MCED screening in real-world practice; and understanding the ethical implications, such as potentially alleviating or exacerbating existing health disparities. These assays present new and complex challenges for designing an RCT. Issues that emerged from the meeting centered around the need for a flexibly designed, clinical utility RCT to rigorously capture the evidence required to fully understand the net benefit of this promising technology. Specific topic areas were endpoints, screening protocols, recruitment, diagnostic pathway, pilot phase, data elements, specimen collection, and ethical considerations., (Published by Oxford University Press 2022.)

Objective: According to the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening, the most reliable estimates of overdiagnosis for breast cancer screening come from stop-screen trials Canada 1, Canada 2, and Malmo. The screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction is the fraction of cancers in a screening program that are overdiagnosed. We used the cumulative incidence method to estimate screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction. Our goal was to derive confidence intervals for estimated screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction and adjust for refusers in these trials., Methods: We first show that the UK Panel's use of a 95% binomial confidence interval for estimated screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction was incorrect. We then derive a correct 95% binomial-Poisson confidence interval. We also use the method of latent-class instrumental variables to adjust for refusers., Results: For the Canada 1 trial, the estimated screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction was 0.23 with a 95% binomial confidence interval of (0.18, 0.27) and a 95% binomial-Poisson confidence interval of (0.04, 0.41). For the Canada 2 trial, the estimated screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction was 0.16 with a 95% binomial confidence interval of (0.12, 0.19) and a 95% binomial-Poisson confidence interval of (-0.01, 0.32). For the Malmo trial, the estimated screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction was 0.19 with a 95% binomial confidence interval of (0.15, 0.22). Adjusting for refusers, the estimated screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction was 0.26 with a 95% binomial-Poisson confidence interval of (0.03, 0.50)., Conclusion: The correct 95% binomial-Poisson confidence interval s for the estimated screen-interval overdiagnosis fraction based on the Canada 1, Canada 2, and Malmo stop-screen trials are much wider than the previously reported incorrect 95% binomial confidence intervals. The 95% binomial-Poisson confidence intervals widen as follow-up time increases, an unappreciated downside of longer follow-up in stop-screen trials.

Paul Pinsky of the US National Cancer Institute and colleagues describe the implementation and outcomes of web-based data sharing from the PLCO and NLST cancer screening trials.

Objective: To investigate the capability of various study designs to determine the sensitivity of a disease screening test., Methods: Quantities that can be calculated from these designs were derived and examined for their relationship to true sensitivity (the ability to detect unrecognized disease that would surface clinically in the absence of screening) and overdiagnosis., Results: To examine the sensitivity of one test, the single cohort design, in which all participants receive the test, is particularly weak, providing only an upper bound on the true sensitivity, and yields no information about overdiagnosis. A randomized design, with one control arm and participants tested in the other, that includes sufficient post-screening follow-up, allows calculation of bounds on, and an approximation to, true sensitivity and also determination of overdiagnosis. Without follow-up, bounds on the true sensitivity can be calculated. To compare two tests, the single cohort paired design in which all participants receive both tests is precarious. The three arm randomized design with post screening follow-up is preferred, yielding an approximation to the true sensitivity, bounds on the true sensitivity, and the extent of overdiagnosis of each test. Without post screening follow-up, bounds on the true sensitivities can be calculated. When an unscreened control arm is not possible, the two-arm randomized design is recommended. Individual test sensitivities cannot be determined, but with sufficient post-screening follow-up, an order relationship can be established, as can the difference in overdiagnosis between the two tests., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: It is unclear whether the higher rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) among non-Hispanic blacks (blacks) is due to lower rates of CRC screening or greater biologic risk., Objective: We aimed to evaluate whether blacks are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (whites) to develop distal colon neoplasia (adenoma and/or cancer) after negative flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG)., Design: We analyzed data of participants with negative FSGs at baseline in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial who underwent repeat FSGs 3 or 5 years later. Subjects with polyps or masses were referred to their physicians for diagnostic colonoscopy. We collected and reviewed the records of diagnostic evaluations., Participants: Our analytic cohort consisted of 21,550 whites and 975 blacks., Main Measures: We did a comparison by race (whites vs. blacks) in the findings of polyps or masses at repeat FSG, the follow-up of abnormal test results and the detection of colorectal neoplasia at diagnostic colonoscopy., Key Results: At the follow-up FSG examination, 304 blacks (31.2 %) and 4183 whites (19.4 %) had abnormal FSG, [adjusted relative risk (RR) = 1.00; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.90-1.10]. However, blacks were less likely to undergo diagnostic colonoscopy (76.6 % vs. 83.1 %; RR = 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.84-0.96). Among all included patients, blacks had similar risk of any distal adenoma (RR = 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.65-1.14) and distal advanced adenoma (RR = 1.01; 95 % CI, 0.60-1.68). Similar results were obtained when we restricted our analysis to compliant subjects who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy (RR = 1.01; 95 % CI, 0.80-1.29) for any distal adenoma and (RR = 1.18; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.92) for distal advanced adenoma., Conclusions: We did not find any differences between blacks and whites in the risk of distal colorectal adenoma 3-5 years after negative FSG. However, follow-up evaluations were lower among blacks.

The aim of cancer screening is to detect asymptomatic cancers whose treatment will result in extension of life, relative to length of life absent screening. Unfortunately, cancer screening also results in overdiagnosis, the detection of cancers that, in the absence of screening, would not present symptomatically during one's lifetime. Thus, their detection and subsequent treatment is unnecessary and detrimental. This definition of overdiagnosis, while succinct, does not capture the ways it can occur, and our interactions with patients, advocates, researchers, clinicians, and journalists have led us to believe that the concept of overdiagnosis is difficult to explain and, for some, difficult to accept. We propose a dichotomy, the "tumor-patient" classification, to aid in understanding overdiagnosis. The tumor category includes asymptomatic malignant disease that would regress spontaneously if left alone, as well as asymptomatic malignant disease that stagnates or progresses too slowly to be life threatening in even the longest of lifetimes. The patient category includes asymptomatic malignant disease that would progress quickly enough to be life threatening during a lifetime of typical length, but lacks clinical relevance because death due to another cause intercedes prior to what would have been the date of symptomatic diagnosis had screening not occurred. Cancer screening of most organs is likely to result in overdiagnosis of both types. However, the ratio of tumor- to patient-driven overdiagnosis almost certainly varies, and may vary drastically, by organ, screening modality, patient characteristics, and other factors., (© Published by Oxford University Press 2015.)

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial is a large-scale research effort conducted by the National Cancer Institute. PLCO offers an example of coordinated research by both the extramural and intramural communities of the National Institutes of Health. The purpose of this article is to describe the PLCO research resource and how it is managed and to assess the productivity and the costs associated with this resource. Such an in-depth analysis of a single large-scale project can shed light on questions such as how large-scale projects should be managed, what metrics should be used to assess productivity, and how costs can be compared with productivity metrics. A comprehensive publication analysis identified 335 primary research publications resulting from research using PLCO data and biospecimens from 2000 to 2012. By the end of 2012, a total of 9679 citations (excluding self-citations) have resulted from this body of research publications, with an average of 29.7 citations per article, and an h index of 45, which is comparable with other large-scale studies, such as the Nurses' Health Study. In terms of impact on public health, PLCO trial results have been used by the US Preventive Services Task Force in making recommendations concerning prostate and ovarian cancer screening. The overall cost of PLCO was $454 million over 20 years, adjusted to 2011 dollars, with approximately $37 million for the collection, processing, and storage of biospecimens, including blood samples, buccal cells, and pathology tissues.

Background: The prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was undertaken to determine whether there is a reduction in prostate cancer mortality from screening using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination (DRE). Mortality after 7-10 years of follow-up has been reported previously. We report extended follow-up to 13 years after the trial., Methods: A total of 76 685 men, aged 55-74 years, were enrolled at 10 screening centers between November 1993 and July 2001 and randomly assigned to the intervention (organized screening of annual PSA testing for 6 years and annual DRE for 4 years; 38 340 men) and control (usual care, which sometimes included opportunistic screening; 38 345 men) arms. Screening was completed in October 2006. All incident prostate cancers and deaths from prostate cancer through 13 years of follow-up or through December 31, 2009, were ascertained. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated as the ratio of observed rates in the intervention and control arms, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated assuming a Poisson distribution for the number of events. Poisson regression modeling was used to examine the interactions with respect to prostate cancer mortality between trial arm and age, comorbidity status, and pretrial PSA testing. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Approximately 92% of the study participants were followed to 10 years and 57% to 13 years. At 13 years, 4250 participants had been diagnosed with prostate cancer in the intervention arm compared with 3815 in the control arm. Cumulative incidence rates for prostate cancer in the intervention and control arms were 108.4 and 97.1 per 10 000 person-years, respectively, resulting in a relative increase of 12% in the intervention arm (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.17). After 13 years of follow-up, the cumulative mortality rates from prostate cancer in the intervention and control arms were 3.7 and 3.4 deaths per 10 000 person-years, respectively, resulting in a non-statistically significant difference between the two arms (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.36). No statistically significant interactions with respect to prostate cancer mortality were observed between trial arm and age (P(interaction) = .81), pretrial PSA testing (P(interaction) = .52), and comorbidity (P(interaction) = .68)., Conclusions: After 13 years of follow-up, there was no evidence of a mortality benefit for organized annual screening in the PLCO trial compared with opportunistic screening, which forms part of usual care, and there was no apparent interaction with age, baseline comorbidity, or pretrial PSA testing.

Introduction: Identification of individuals at high risk for lung cancer should be of value to individuals, patients, clinicians, and researchers. Existing prediction models have only modest capabilities to classify persons at risk accurately., Methods: Prospective data from 70 962 control subjects in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) were used in models for the general population (model 1) and for a subcohort of ever-smokers (N = 38 254) (model 2). Both models included age, socioeconomic status (education), body mass index, family history of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, recent chest x-ray, smoking status (never, former, or current), pack-years smoked, and smoking duration. Model 2 also included smoking quit-time (time in years since ever-smokers permanently quit smoking). External validation was performed with 44 223 PLCO intervention arm participants who completed a supplemental questionnaire and were subsequently followed. Known available risk factors were included in logistic regression models. Bootstrap optimism-corrected estimates of predictive performance were calculated (internal validation). Nonlinear relationships for age, pack-years smoked, smoking duration, and quit-time were modeled using restricted cubic splines. All reported P values are two-sided., Results: During follow-up (median 9.2 years) of the control arm subjects, 1040 lung cancers occurred. During follow-up of the external validation sample (median 3.0 years), 213 lung cancers occurred. For models 1 and 2, bootstrap optimism-corrected receiver operator characteristic area under the curves were 0.857 and 0.805, and calibration slopes (model-predicted probabilities vs observed probabilities) were 0.987 and 0.979, respectively. In the external validation sample, models 1 and 2 had area under the curves of 0.841 and 0.784, respectively. These models had high discrimination in women, men, whites, and nonwhites., Conclusion: The PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.

Background: The 5-year overall survival rate of lung cancer patients is approximately 15%. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease and have shorter survival rates than patients with early-stage disease. Although screening for lung cancer has the potential to increase early diagnosis, it has not been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality rates. In 1993, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was initiated specifically to determine whether screening would reduce mortality rates from PLCO cancers., Methods: A total of 77 464 participants, aged 55-74 years, were randomly assigned to the intervention arm of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial between November 8, 1993, and July 2, 2001. Participants received a baseline chest radiograph (CXR), followed by three annual single-view CXRs at the 10 US screening centers. Cancers were classified as screen detected and nonscreen detected (interval or never screened) and according to tumor histology. The positivity rates of screen-detected cancers and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. Because 51.6% of the participants were current or former smokers, logistic regression analysis was performed to control for smoking status. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Compliance with screening decreased from 86.6% at baseline to 78.9% at the last screening. Overall positivity rates were 8.9% at baseline and 6.6%-7.1% at subsequent screenings; positivity rates increased modestly with smoking risk categories (P(trend) < .001). The PPVs for all participants were 2.0% at baseline and 1.1%, 1.5%, and 2.4% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively; PPVs in current smokers were 5.9% at baseline and 3.3%, 4.2%, and 5.6% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A total of 564 lung cancers were diagnosed, of which 306 (54%) were screen-detected cancers and 87% were non-small cell lung cancers. Among non-small cell lung cancers, 59.6% of screen-detected cancers and 33.3% of interval cancers were early (I-II) stage., Conclusions: The PLCO Cancer Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to recruit, retain, and screen a large population over multiple years at multiple centers. A higher proportion of screen-detected lung cancers were early stage, but a conclusion on the effectiveness of CXR screening must await final PLCO results, which are anticipated at the end of 2015.

Background: It is unclear whether the disproportionately higher incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer among blacks compared with whites reflect differences in health-care utilization or colorectal cancer susceptibility., Methods: A total of 60, 572 non-Hispanic white and black participants in the ongoing Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial underwent trial-sponsored screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) without biopsy at baseline in 10 geographically dispersed centers from November 1993 to July 2001. Subjects with polyps or mass lesions detected by FSG were referred to their physicians for diagnostic workup, the cost of which was not covered by PLCO. The records of follow-up evaluations were collected and reviewed. We used log binomial modeling with adjustment for age, education, sex, body mass index, smoking, family history of colorectal cancer, colon examination within previous 3 years, personal history of polyps, and screening center to examine whether utilization of diagnostic colonoscopy and yield of neoplasia differed by race., Results: Among 57 561 whites and 3011 blacks who underwent FSG, 13,743 (23.9%) and 767 (25.5%) had abnormal examinations, respectively. A total of 9944 (72.4%) whites and 480 (62.6%) blacks had diagnostic colonoscopy within 1 year following the abnormal FSG screening. When compared with whites, blacks were less likely to undergo diagnostic evaluation (adjusted risk ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval = 0.83 to 0.93). Overall, among subjects with diagnostic colonoscopy (n = 10 424), there was no statistically significant difference by race in the prevalence of adenoma, advanced adenoma, advanced pathology in small adenomas (high-grade dysplasia or villous histology in adenomas <10 mm), or colorectal cancer., Conclusions: We observed a lower follow-up for screen-detected abnormalities among blacks when compared with whites but little difference in the yield of colorectal neoplasia. Health-care utilization may be playing more of a role in colorectal cancer racial disparity than biology.

Introduction: Chest radiographs are routinely employed in clinical practice. Radiographic findings that are abnormal suspicious (AS) for lung cancer occur commonly. The majority of AS radiographic abnormalities are not cancer. This study identifies predictors of true positive (TP) AS and presents models for estimating the probability of lung cancer., Methods: This is a prospective cohort study nested in the randomized National Cancer Institute's Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). First-time AS screens in the screening arm of the PLCO were studied. Associations between nonradiographic and radiographic factors, and TP AS were evaluated by multiple logistic regression., Results: The PLCO intervention arm had 77,465 individuals, of whom 12,314 were AS and of these 232 (1.9%) had lung cancer (were TP). Important independent predictors of TP were older age, lower education, greater pack years and duration smoking history, body mass index <30, family history of lung cancer, lung nodule, lung mass, unilateral mediastinal or hilar lymphadenopathy, lung infiltrate, and upper/middle chest AS location. The model including these variables had a receiver operator characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) of 86.4%. This model excluding the smoking variables had an ROC AUC of 77.1% and excluding all nonradiographic variables had an ROC AUC of 73.3% (p < 0.0001 for all these model differences). Smoking and nonsmoking nonradiographic variables significantly added to prediction., Conclusion: This study identifies important nonradiographic and radiographic predictors of lung cancer, and presents an accurate model for estimating the probability of lung cancer in individuals with suspicious radiographs. These findings may be of value for screening, research, and patient and clinician decision-making.

Purpose: Multiple cancer screening tests have been advocated for the general population; however, clinicians and patients are not always well-informed of screening burdens. We sought to determine the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result and the resulting risk of a diagnostic procedure for an individual participating in a multimodal cancer screening program., Methods: Data were analyzed from the intervention arm of the ongoing Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, a randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening on disease-specific mortality. The 68,436 participants, aged 55 to 74 years, were randomized to screening or usual care. Women received serial serum tests to detect cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), transvaginal sonograms, posteroanterior-view chest radiographs, and flexible sigmoidoscopies. Men received serial chest radiographs, flexible sigmoidoscopies, digital rectal examinations, and serum prostate-specific antigen tests. Fourteen screening examinations for each sex were possible during the 3-year screening period., Results: After 14 tests, the cumulative risk of having at least 1 false-positive screening test is 60.4% (95% CI, 59.8%-61.0%) for men, and 48.8% (95% CI, 48.1%-49.4%) for women. The cumulative risk after 14 tests of undergoing an invasive diagnostic procedure prompted by a false-positive test is 28.5% (CI, 27.8%-29.3%) for men and 22.1% (95% CI, 21.4%-22.7%) for women., Conclusions: For an individual in a multimodal cancer screening trial, the risk of a false-positive finding is about 50% or greater by the 14th test. Physicians should educate patients about the likelihood of false positives and resulting diagnostic interventions when counseling about cancer screening.

Background: Multidisciplinary attempts to understand the etiology of breast cancer are expanding to increasingly include new potential markers of disease risk. Those efforts may have maximal scientific and practical influence if new findings are placed in context of the well-understood lifestyle and reproductive risk factors or existing risk prediction models for breast cancer. We therefore evaluated known risk factors for breast cancer in a cancer screening trial that does not have breast cancer as a study endpoint but is large enough to provide numerous analytic opportunities for breast cancer., Methods: We evaluated risk factors for breast cancer (N = 2085) among 70,575 women who were randomized in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Using Poisson regression, we calculated adjusted relative risks [RRs, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] for lifestyle and reproductive factors during an average of 5 years of follow-up from date of randomization., Results: As expected, increasing age, nulliparity, positive family history of breast cancer, and use of menopausal hormone therapy were positively associated with breast cancer. Later age at menarche (16 years or older vs. < 12: RR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.02) or menopause (55 years or older vs. < 45: RR = 1.29, 95% CI, 1.03-1.62) were less strongly associated with breast cancer than was expected. There were weak positive associations between taller height and heavier weight, and only severe obesity [body mass index (BMI; kg/m(2)) 35 or more vs. 18.5-24.9: RR = 1.21, 95% CI, 1.02-1.43] was statistically significantly associated with breast cancer., Conclusion: The ongoing PLCO trial offers continued opportunities for new breast cancer investigations, but these analyses suggest that the associations between breast cancer and age at menarche, age at menopause, and obesity might be changing as the underlying demographics of these factors change., Clinical Trials Registration: (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov), NCT00002540.

Background: Previous studies have shown an inverse relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration and body mass index (BMI). It has been recently proposed that this relationship may be explained by the larger plasma volume of obese men diluting a fixed amount of PSA (hemodilution effect). We examined this hypothesis in a cohort of men enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial., Methods: Of 38,349 men ages 55 to 74 years randomized in PLCO to receive annual PSA and digital rectal examination screening, 28,380 had a baseline PSA, complete demographic information, and no prostate cancer diagnosis within 6 years from baseline. Self-reported height and weight were used to calculate BMI and to estimate plasma volume. PSA mass was estimated as PSA concentration times plasma volume. Multivariable linear regression models were used to investigate the relationship between PSA concentration, plasma volume, PSA mass, and BMI., Results: PSA concentration significantly decreased with increasing BMI (P<0.001); mean PSA values were 1.27, 1.25, 1.18, and 1.07 ng/mL among normal (BMI, 18.5-25), overweight (BMI, 25-30), obese (BMI, 30-35), and morbidly obese (BMI, >35) men, respectively. However, plasma volume also increased with increasing BMI and PSA mass showed no association with BMI, with mean values of 3.78, 3.95, 3.97, and 3.82 microg across the four BMI categories (P=0.10)., Conclusions: This study confirms earlier findings that the inverse relationship between PSA concentration and BMI may be explained by a hemodilution effect. These findings could have implications for prostate cancer screening in large men.

Objective: Many cancer screening trials involve a screening programme of one or more screenings with follow-up after the last screening. Usually a maximum follow-up time is selected in advance. However, during the follow-up period there is an opportunity to report the results of the trial sooner than planned. Early reporting of results from a randomized screening trial is important because obtaining a valid result sooner translates into health benefits reaching the general population sooner. The health benefits are reduction in cancer deaths if screening is found to be beneficial and more screening is recommended, or avoidance of unnecessary biopsies, work-ups and morbidity if screening is not found to be beneficial and the rate of screening drops., Methods: Our proposed method for deciding if results from a cancer screening trial should be reported earlier in the follow-up period is based on considerations involving postscreening noise. Postscreening noise (sometimes called dilution) refers to cancer deaths in the follow-up period that could not have been prevented by screening: (1) cancer deaths in the screened group that occurred after the last screening in subjects whose cancers were not detected during the screening program and (2) cancer deaths in the control group that occurred after the time of the last screening and whose cancers would not have been detected during the screening programme had they been randomized to screening (the number of which is unobserved). Because postscreening noise increases with follow-up after the last screening, we propose early reporting at the time during the follow-up period when postscreening noise first starts to overwhelm the estimated effect of screening as measured by a z-statistic. This leads to a confidence interval, adjusted for postscreening noise, that would not change substantially with additional follow-up. Details of the early reporting rule were refined by simulation, which also accounts for multiple looks., Results: For the re-analysis of the Health Insurance Plan trial for breast cancer screening and the Mayo Lung Project for lung cancer screening, estimates and confidence intervals for the effect of screening on cancer mortality were similar on early reporting and later., Conclusion: The proposed early reporting rule for a cancer screening trial with post-screening follow-up is a promising method for making results from the trial available sooner, which translates into health benefits (reduction in cancer deaths or avoidance of unnecessary morbidity) reaching the population sooner.

Background: Some non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) progress to distant lymph nodes or metastasize while relatively small. Such small aggressive NSCLCs (SA-NSCLC) are no longer resectable with curative intent, carry a grave prognosis, and may involve unique biological pathways. This is a study of factors associated with SA-NSCLC., Methods: A nested case-case study was embedded in the National Cancer Institute's Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. SA-NSCLC cases had stage T1, N3, and/or M1 NSCLC (n = 48) and non-SA-NSCLC cases had T2 to T3, N0 to N2, and M0 NSCLC (n = 329). Associations were assessed by multiple logistic regression., Results: SA-NSCLCs were associated with younger age at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR)(>or=65 versus <65), 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.22-0.88], female gender, family history of lung cancer, and the interaction gender*family history of lung cancer and were inversely associated with ibuprofen use (OR(yes versus no), 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.76). The ORs for associating gender (women versus men) with SA-NSCLC in those with and without a family history of lung cancer were 11.76 (95% CI, 2.00-69.22) and 1.86 (95% CI, 0.88-3.96), respectively. These associations held adjusted for histology and time from screening to diagnosis and when alternative controls were assessed., Conclusion: SA-NSCLC was associated with female gender, especially in those with a family history of lung cancer. If these exploratory findings, which are subject to bias, are validated as causal, elucidation of the genetic and female factors involved may improve understanding of cancer progression and lead to preventions and therapies. Ibuprofen may inhibit lung cancer progression.

Background: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was initiated in 1992 to examine cause-specific mortality reduction from screening for these four cancers in men and women. We report lung cancer detection results of the baseline screening round., Methods: Of the 154,942 participants enrolled, who were aged 55-74 years with no history of PLCO cancers, 77,465 were randomly assigned to the intervention arm. Current or former smokers and never smokers in this arm received an initial single-view posterior-anterior chest radiograph., Results: In the initial screen, 5991 (8.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.7% to 9.2%) of radiographs were suspicious for lung cancer: 8.2% (95% CI = 7.9% to 8.5%) for women and 9.6% (95% CI = 9.3% to 10.0%) for men. Rates were highest for older age groups and for smokers. Among those 5991 participants with a positive screen, 206 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.0% to 3.9%) underwent biopsy examination, 126 (61.2%, 95% CI = 54.5% to 67.8%) of whom were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months of the screen (59 in women and 67 in men). The positive predictive value was 2.1% (95% CI = 1.7% to 2.5%), and 1.9 lung cancers were detected per 1000 screens. Among these cancers, 44% (95% CI = 35% to 52%) were stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. High rates of lung cancer were found in current smokers (6.3 per 1000 screens) and in former smokers who had smoked within the past 15 years (4.9 per 1000 screens). The lung cancer detection rate among never smokers was 0.4 per 1000 screens; this group accounted for 11% (95% CI = 5.6% to 16.6%) of the cancers identified., Conclusions: In the baseline screen, nearly half the cancers were stage I. Whether this experience results in a reduction in lung cancer mortality is yet to be seen.

Background: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial is a randomized clinical trial to test the effectiveness of cancer screening, including the effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer mortality. Here we report findings from the baseline screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examination., Methods: Analyses included 77,465 men and women aged 55-74 years who were enrolled at 10 screening centers. The trial administered baseline risk factor questionnaires, offered 60-cm flexible sigmoidoscopy examinations, referred patients with screen-detected colorectal polyps or masses to personal physicians, and tracked subjects with polyps or masses to determine results from diagnostic follow-up. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics and logistic regression were used to test for differences in proportions according to sex and age., Results: A total of 64 658 subjects (83.5%) underwent screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, and at least one polyp or mass was identified in 15,150 subjects (23.4%). Of these, 74.2% received follow-up lower endoscopic procedures. Follow-up lower endoscopy was more frequent in subjects with at least one larger (> or = 0.5 cm) polyp or mass (86.0% [95% confidence interval {CI} = 84.6% to 87.4%] and 81.0% [95% CI = 79.8% to 82.2%] in women and men, respectively) than in those with a smaller (< 0.5 cm) polyp or mass (69.1% [95% CI = 67.5% to 70.6%] and 65.4% [95% CI = 64.1% to 66.7%] in women and men, respectively). The yields per 1000 screened, depending on 5-year age group, were as follows: for colorectal cancer, 1.1-2.5 in women and 2.4-5.6 in men; for advanced adenoma, 18.0-30.4 in women and 36.1-49.1 in men; and for colorectal cancer or any adenoma, 50.6-79.6 in women and 101.9-128.6 in men. Approximately 77% (130/169) of the colorectal adenocarcinoma patients were stage I or II at diagnosis., Conclusions: Acceptance of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy was high. Diagnostic follow-up varied according to polyp size, yet cancer or adenoma detection rates met expectations.

Background: The benefit of screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination (DRE) is uncertain and is under evaluation in a randomized prospective trial, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Although the final results are several years away, the initial round of screening is complete. We describe the population enrolled in the PLCO trial, their baseline PSA and DRE screening results, and diagnostic follow-up results during the first year of follow-up., Methods: A total of 38,350 men were randomly assigned to the screening arm of the PLCO trial from November 1993 through June 2001. Men were advised to seek diagnostic follow-up from their primary care provider if their DRE was suspicious for cancer and/or if their serum PSA level was higher than 4 ng/mL. PLCO trial staff obtained records related to diagnostic follow-up., Results: Compliance with both screening tests was high (more than 89%). At screening, 7.5% of men had a positive DRE (i.e., suspicious for cancer) and 7.9% had a PSA level higher than 4 ng/mL. Of the men with positive screening tests, 74.2% underwent additional diagnostic testing, and 31.5% underwent a prostatic biopsy within 1 year. Overall, 1.4% of the men in the screening arm were diagnosed with prostate cancer, the majority of whom had clinically localized cancer. These compliance, biopsy, and cancer detection rates appear to be representative of contemporary practice patterns., Conclusion: The PLCO trial is evaluating PSA- and DRE-based screening for prostate cancer in a clinically valid manner. Whether such screening will result in a reduction of prostate cancer mortality cannot be answered until the randomized comparison is completed.

The goal of screening tests for a chronic disease such as cancer is early detection and treatment with a consequent reduction in mortality from the disease. Screening tests, however, might produce false positive and false-negative results. With an increasing number of screening tests, it is clear that the risk of a false-positive screen, a finding with potentially significant emotional, financial, and health costs, also increases. Elmore et al. (1998, New England Journal of Medicine 338, 1089-1096), Christiansen et al. (2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92, 1657-1666), and Gelfand and Wang (2000, Statistics in Medicine 19, 1865-1879) investigated this problem under the somewhat unrealistic assumption that the choice of making the decision to drop out at the kth screen does not depend upon the results of the earlier k - 1 screens. In this article we obtain sufficient and necessary conditions for their assumption to hold and use one of them to provide a method for testing the validity of the assumption. A new model which does not depend on their assumption is introduced. The maximum likelihood estimator of the cumulative risk of receiving a false-positive screen under the new model is derived and its asymptotic normality is proved. The extension of the new model by incorporating covariate information is also considered. We apply our testing method and the new model to data from the breast cancer screening trial of the Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York.

Background: In recent years there has been increased interest in evaluating breast cancer screening using data from before-and-after studies in multiple geographic regions. One approach, not previously mentioned, is the paired availability design. The paired availability design was developed to evaluate the effect of medical interventions by comparing changes in outcomes before and after a change in the availability of an intervention in various locations. A simple potential outcomes model yields estimates of efficacy, the effect of receiving the intervention, as opposed to effectiveness, the effect of changing the availability of the intervention. By combining estimates of efficacy rather than effectiveness, the paired availability design avoids confounding due to different fractions of subjects receiving the interventions at different locations. The original formulation involved short-term outcomes; the challenge here is accommodating long-term outcomes., Methods: The outcome is incident breast cancer deaths in a time period, which are breast cancer deaths that were diagnosed in the same time period. We considered the plausibility of the basic five assumptions of the paired availability design and propose a novel analysis to accommodate likely violations of the assumption of stable screening effects., Results: We applied the paired availability design to data on breast cancer screening from six counties in Sweden. The estimated yearly change in incident breast cancer deaths per 100,000 persons ages 40-69 (in most counties) due to receipt of screening (among the relevant type of subject in the potential outcomes model) was -9 with 95% confidence interval (-14, -4) or (-14, -5), depending on the sensitivity analysis., Conclusion: In a realistic application, the extended paired availability design yielded reasonably precise confidence intervals for the effect of receiving screening on the rate of incident breast cancer death. Although the assumption of stable preferences may be questionable, its impact will be small if there is little screening in the first time period. However, estimates may be substantially confounded by improvements in systemic therapy over time. Therefore the results should be interpreted with care.

We provide a general framework for describing various roles for biomarkers in cancer prevention research (early detection, surrogate endpoint, and cohort identification for primary prevention) and the phases in their evaluation.

Background: Because randomized cancer screening trials are very expensive, observational cancer screening studies can play an important role in the early phases of screening evaluation. Periodic screening evaluation (PSE) is a methodology for estimating the reduction in population cancer mortality from data on subjects who receive regularly scheduled screens. Although PSE does not require assumptions about natural history of cancer it requires other assumptions, particularly progressive detection - the assumption that once a cancer is detected by a screening test, it will always be detected by the screening test., Methods: We formulate a simple version of PSE and show that it leads to an upper bound on screening efficacy if the progressive detection assumption does not hold (and any effect of birth cohort is minimal) To determine if the upper bound is reasonable, for three randomized screening trials, we compared PSE estimates based only on screened subjects with PSE estimates based on all subjects., Results: In the three randomized screening trials, PSE estimates based on screened subjects gave fairly close results to PSE estimates based on all subjects., Conclusion: PSE has promise for obtaining an upper bound on the reduction in population cancer mortality rates based on observational screening data. If the upper bound estimate is found to be small and any birth cohort effects are likely minimal, then a definitive randomized trial would not be warranted.

Background: The evaluation of randomized trials for cancer screening involves special statistical considerations not found in therapeutic trials. Although some of these issues have been discussed previously, we present important recent and new methodologies., Methods: Our emphasis is on simple approaches., Results: We make the following recommendations: (1) Use death from cancer as the primary endpoint, but review death records carefully and report all causes of death; (2) Use a simple "causal" estimate to adjust for nonattendance and contamination occurring immediately after randomization; (3) Use a simple adaptive estimate to adjust for dilution in follow-up after the last screen, Conclusion: The proposed guidelines combine recent methodological work on screening endpoints and noncompliance/contamination with a new adaptive method to adjust for dilution in a study where follow-up continues after the last screen. These guidelines ensure good practice in the design and analysis of randomized trials of cancer screening.

Background: The Mayo Lung Project (MLP) was a randomized, controlled clinical trial of lung cancer screening that was conducted in 9211 male smokers between 1971 and 1983. The intervention arm was offered chest x-ray and sputum cytology every 4 months for 6 years; the usual-care arm was advised at trial entry to receive the same tests annually. No lung cancer mortality benefit was evident at the end of the study. We have extended follow-up through 1996., Methods: A National Death Index-PLUS search was used to assign vital status and date and cause of death for 6523 participants with unknown information. The median survival for lung cancer patients diagnosed before July 1, 1983, was calculated by use of Kaplan-Meier estimates. Survival curves were compared with the log-rank test., Results: The median follow-up time was 20.5 years. Lung cancer mortality was 4.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.9-4.9) deaths per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 3.9 (95% CI = 3.5-4.4) in the usual-care arm (two-sided P: for difference =.09). For participants diagnosed with lung cancer before July 1, 1983, survival was better in the intervention arm (two-sided P: =.0039). The median survival for patients with resected early-stage disease was 16.0 years in the intervention arm versus 5.0 years in the usual-care arm., Conclusions: Extended follow-up of MLP participants did not reveal a lung cancer mortality reduction for the intervention arm. Similar mortality but better survival for individuals in the intervention arm indicates that some lesions with limited clinical relevance may have been identified in the intervention arm.

Using a microsimulation approach, the authors examined design and bias issues in case-control studies of cancer screening. Specifically, they looked at the impact on the odds ratio of the way in which exposure to screening is defined, the type of age matching, the time scale used, and the criteria used to determine control eligibility. The results showed that defining exposure as "ever/never" screened produced, as expected, a serious bias in favor of screening. Defining exposure as being screened no later than the time the case's cancer is diagnosed has a serious bias against screening. An alternative exposure definition--screening can occur no later than the time the case would have been clinically diagnosed--eliminates the bias against screening. Further, the results showed that the type of age matching and the time scale used can produce a bias against screening and that this bias can be quite strong when case-control studies are performed in populations with a periodic screening program that is the only source of screening. Finally, control eligibility criteria had little effect.

Background: The prostate-specific antigen test was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1986 to monitor the disease status in patients with prostate cancer and, in 1994, to aid in prostate cancer detection. However, after 1986, the test was performed on many men who had not been previously diagnosed with prostate cancer, apparently resulting in the diagnosis of a substantial number of early tumors. Our purpose is to provide insight into the effect of screening on prostate cancer rates. Detailed data are presented for whites because the size of the population allows for calculating statistically reliable rates; however, similar overall trends are seen for African-Americans and other races., Methods: Prostate cancer incidence data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics were analyzed., Results/conclusions: The following findings are consistent with a screening effect: 1) the recent decrease since 1991 in the incidence of distant stage disease, after not having been perturbed by screening; 2) the decline in the incidence of earlier stage disease beginning the following year (i.e., 1992); 3) the recent increases and decreases in prostate cancer incidence and mortality by age that appear to indicate a calendar period effect; and 4) trends in the incidence of distant stage disease by tumor grade and trends in the survival of patients with distant stage disease by calendar year that provide suggestive evidence of the tendency of screening to detect slower growing tumors., Implications: The decline in the incidence of distant stage disease holds the promise that testing for prostate-specific antigen may lead to a sustained decline in prostate cancer mortality. However, population data are complex, and it is difficult to confidently attribute relatively small changes in mortality to any one cause.

Objectives: To examine whether age at entry, history of cigarette smoking, exposure to non-tobacco lung carcinogens, or previous pulmonary illnesses were confounders or effect modifiers of the relation between screening and lung cancer mortality in the Mayo Lung Project., Setting: The Mayo Lung Project was a randomised, controlled, clinical trial conducted between 1971 and 1986 in 9211 male smokers over the age of 45 in Minnesota (USA). The group screened received chest x ray examination and sputum cytology every four months for six years. The unscreened group were recommended to obtain usual care (annual chest x ray examination and sputum cytology). After follow up, lung cancer mortality was similar in both groups., Methods: Proportional hazard models were used to analyse data. A variable was considered a confounder if its inclusion in a model changed the rate ratio for screening by more than 15%; a variable was considered an effect modifier if its stratum-specific rate ratio for screening differed by a factor of two., Results: None of the four aforementioned variables changed the rate ratio associated with screening (1.07) by more than 2%. The effect of screening may have differed by years smoked (rate ratio for smoking fewer than 30 years 2.4; rate ratio for smoking 30 or more years 1.0), though we suspect that this result occurred by chance., Conclusion: Adjustment for or stratification by four established lung cancer risk factors did not alter the original findings of the Mayo Lung Project.

In studying the relationship between the size of primary cancers and the occurrence of metastases, two quantities are of prime importance. The first is the distribution of tumor size at the point of metastatic transition, while the second is the probability that detectable metastases are present when cancer comes to medical attention. Kimmel and Flehinger (1991, Biometrics 47, 987-1004) developed a general nonparametric model and studied its two limiting cases. Because of unidentifiablity of their general model, a new identifiable model is introduced by making the hazard function for detecting a metastatic cancer a constant. The new model includes Kimmel and Flehinger's (1991) second limiting model as a special case. An estimator of the tumor size distribution at metastases is proposed. The result is applied to a set of colorectal cancer data.

This review summarizes methodologic theories for the design of cancer screening case-control studies and examines the methods applied in studies published in English from 1980 through 1996. In addition to summarizing state-of-the-art methodologic approaches, we identify areas where obvious gaps exist between theory and practice, and we recommend potential areas where theory and methodology may need further development. In particular, we focus on three major areas: 1) the selection of case and control subjects, 2) the definition of exposure (i.e., exposure to the screening test), and 3) bias. Each area is considered carefully by summarizing current theory, reviewing cancer screening applications, and linking recommended methodologic approaches to those used in practice to identify areas where inconsistencies exist. In general, we found methodologic theory and practice in this field of research to be consistent. However, discrepancies were identified in the area of exposure definition, including the use of screening frequency and the use of a detectable, curable preclinical phase for case subjects as the exposure measures. Even when recommended methods were followed, a number of difficulties arose in practice. Specific concerns included the ability to carry out the following: identifying all case subjects within a source population, defining eligibility criteria to ensure that case and control subjects had equal access to screening during the exposure period, distinguishing between symptomatic and diagnostic tests, and controlling for self-selection bias. Careful scrutiny is warranted in all aspects of the design of cancer screening case-control studies, and caution is advised in the interpretation of study results.

Two probabilistic characterizations of the relationship between the size of primary cancers and the occurrence of metastases are considered. The first is the distribution of tumor size at the point of metastatic transition, while the second is the probability that detectable metastases are present when cancer comes to medical attention. We show that the general model for this problem developed by Kimmel and Flehinger (1991, Biometrics 47, 987-1004) is unidentifiable. That is, the quantities to be estimated cannot be uniquely determined by the available information. An identifiable model that includes one limiting model of Kimmel and Flehinger (1991) as a special case is developed by using odds ratios. Under the new model, both quantities of interest are estimated by using a nonparametric maximum likelihood approach. The results are applied to two lung cancer data sets.

To enable pooled analyses of continuing and planned randomised trials of prostate cancer screening, guidelines for minimal data required for such analyses were developed in the recent meeting of the International Prostate Screening Trial Evaluation Group (IPSTEG). The aim of the pooled analysis with data on individual level will be: (a) Estimation of the effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality with greater precision than individual studies (b) Assessment of optimal screening procedures and interval (c) Identification of subgroups within the populations that might receive most benefit from screening (d) Evaluation of the quality of life effects and cost effectiveness of screening. All studies included in the combined analysis share a common core protocol with minimum data requirements. The protocol allows, however, adaptation of the procedures to local circumstances within defined options. It should be noted that the process is continuing and the protocol is subject to evaluation and revision in the meetings of the IPSTEG on a regular basis.

A workshop of the Project on Evaluation of Screening Programmes of the International Union against Cancer (UICC) was held in Lyon, France. on November 20-22, 1984. The focus of the workshop was on screening for gynaecological cancer, especially for cancer of the cervix uteri. This report summarizes the presentations, conclusions and recommendations from the workshop.