Search

Biomedical research cannot succeed without funding, knowledgeable staff, and appropriate infrastructure. There are however equally important but intangible factors that are rarely considered in planning large multidisciplinary endeavors or evaluating their success. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial required extensive collaborations between individuals from many fields, including clinicians, clinical trialists, and administrators; it also addressed questions across the spectrum of cancer prevention and control. In this manuscript, we examine the experiences and opinions of trial staff regarding the building of successful relationships in PLCO. We summarize, in narrative form, data collected using open-ended questionnaires that were administered to the National Cancer Institute project officers, coordinating center staff, screening center principal investigators, and screening center coordinators in 2015, about 3 years after publication of the final primary trial manuscript. Trust, respect, listening to others, and in-person interaction were frequently mentioned as crucial to building successful relationships.

The NCI imbedded the notion of comprehensive quality control and assurance (CQA) in the design concept for the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. PLCO implemented a comprehensive, adaptable quality assurance and control program to span more than 20 years of data collection, coordinate multiple institutions and committees, and integrate a wide variety of complex protocols. CQA concepts, practices, and procedures traced through all aspects of trial management, governance, and operations of PLCO. The driving force behind CQA in PLCO was scientific and clinical credibility of trial data and findings. CQA as implemented in PLCO was operationally analogous to the concept of Total Quality Management (TQM) described in the management literature. This paper describes CQA actualization in PLCO.

There were significant recruitment challenges specific to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Large numbers of participants were to be randomized from ten catchment areas nationwide within time and budgetary constraints. The eligible population was elderly and had to meet health and behavioral thresholds. Informed consent was required to participate and be randomized to screening for three cancers at periodic clinic visits or to a usual care arm that included no clinical visits. Consenting required special efforts to fully explain the trial and its potential scientific benefit to future patients with potentially no benefits but possible harms to PLCO participants. Participation would include continued follow-up for at least 13 years after randomization. Strong collaborative investments were required by the NCI and screening centers (SCs) to assure timely recruitment and appropriate racial participation. A trial-wide pilot phase tested recruitment and protocol follow through at SCs and produced a vanguard population of 11,406 participants. NCI announced the trial nationally in advance of the pilot and followed with an even more intense collaborative role with SCs for the main phase to facilitate trial-wide efficient and timely recruitment. Special efforts to enhance recruitment in the main phase included centralized and local monitoring of progress, cross-linking SCs to share experiences in problem solving, centralized training, substantial additional funding dedicated to recruitment and retention, including specialized programs for minority recruitment, obtaining national endorsement by the American Cancer Society, launching satellite recruitment and screening centers, including minority focused satellites, and adding a new SC dedicated to minority recruitment.

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), a large-scale, multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial, was launched in 1992 to evaluate the effectiveness of screening modalities for prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. However, PLCO was additionally designed to serve as an epidemiologic resource and the National Cancer Institute has invested substantial resources over the years to accomplish this goal. In this report, we provide a summary of changes to PLCO’s follow-up after conclusion of the screening phase of the trial and highlight recent data and biospecimen collections, including ancillary studies, geocoding, administration of a new medication use questionnaire, consent for linkage to Medicare, and additional tissue collection that enhance the richness of the PLCO resource and provide further opportunities for scientific investigation into the prevention, early detection, etiology and treatment of cancer.

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was a large, randomized controlled trial of cancer screening that also evolved over time into a unique epidemiologic cohort. Vast quantities of data have been collected since the beginning of the trial in 1993. Screening data was obtained through 2006. Questionnaire-based risk factor data (collected at baseline and at other points in the trial), vital status, cancer diagnoses and treatment, biospecimen data and additional ancillary efforts continue to be collected. Accurate data collection and efficient management methods are required to ensure high-quality data and valid and consistent analyses of trial outcomes. Information Management Services (IMS) was and continues to be responsible for processing and converting the collected raw PLCO data into comprehensive and accessible datasets. IMS also continues to provide a wide spectrum of analytic support including support for trial monitoring, data sharing, and epidemiologic research. In this paper, we describe the data processing and management requirements from the analytic team perspective, highlighting the various data sources and their complexity. We also illustrate the construction of usable analytic data files and discuss the wide range of analytic support provided. Instructions for accessing PLCO data also are provided.

Death review was conducted for the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial to avoid the biases associated with causes of death entered on death certificates. An algorithm selected deaths for review. Records on diagnosis and terminal illness were perused in the coordinating center and by the chair of the death review committee (DRC). Identifying information and randomization arm was removed. Three reviewers independently determined the cause of death. Disagreement was resolved at a meeting of the DRC. This process was subsequently simplified. The cause of death was determined by one DRC member and compared to the death certificate. With agreement the case was finalized. When discordant, the records were sent to a second DRC member. If the reviewers agreed, the case was finalized. If not, a third member reviewed. If two of the three reviewers agreed, the case was sent back to the discordant reviewer. If the reviewer remained discordant the case was resolved by a conference call. Of the 4728 death reviews that were completed, the DRC confirmed the death certificate underlying cause for over 90%. Between 5% and 13% of the certified deaths were regarded as indirect causes of death, associated with the treatment of the ascertained cancer; differential for prostate cancer, 11% in the intervention arm and 6% in the control. Without review, between 1% and 6% of the deaths that occurred would not have been assigned to the relevant PLCO cancer. The DRC completed 76% of those requiring review before the process ceased.