Search

Objective: To obtain information from participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial regarding their perception of the retention materials employed by the screening centers. Also, to determine the viability of using email or the internet as a data collection tool with an older population., Design: Three of ten PLCO screening centers queried participants towards the end of the study (2010) as to their opinions of the various retention materials and whether they would have been willing to use electronic communication for study activities, had the option been available., Setting: The questionnaires were administered by mail, and responses were returned to the originating screening center., Participants: The participants in this study consisted of all the active participants at three PLCO screening centers: the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, the University of Utah, and Henry Ford Health System., Methods: A short, self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all active participants at three PLCO centers (n=41,482). This was a one-time mailing with no follow-up, as the responses were designed to be anonymous in order to obtain the most honest responses., Results: The response rate was 62%. Of respondents, 97% reported their PLCO experience was good or excellent. Nearly 50% of respondents indicated that receipt of an annual newsletter made them more likely to participate; newsletter features they reported as most important were those that conveyed information on cancer, study findings, and how their data were being used. Results did not support study coordinators' suppositions that receipt of a token gift or birthday card by participants was important for retention. Fewer than 30% of respondents indicated that they would have been unwilling to use a secure website to complete study forms., Conclusion: These data indicate the importance of querying participants rather than relying on impressions of study staff, and also indicate that the internet will be a viable means of data collection in future prevention studies that include older Americans., (© 2015 Marshfield Clinic.)

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.

Objective: Identify predictors of non-compliance with first round screening exams in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial., Method: The PLCO was conducted from 1993 to 2011 at 10 US institutions. A total of 154,897 healthy men and women ages 55-74 years were randomized. Intervention arm participants were invited to receive gender-appropriate screening exams for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Using intervention-arm data (73,036 participants), non-compliance percentages for 13 covariates were calculated, as were unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals. Covariates included demographic factors as well as factors specific to PLCO (e.g., method of consent, distance from screening center)., Results: The rate of non-compliance was 11% overall but varied by screening center. Significant associations were observed for most covariates but indicated modest increases or decreases in odds. An exception was the use of a two-step consent process (consented intervention arm participants for exams after randomization) relative to a one-step process (consented all participants prior to randomization) (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.0-2.5). Non-compliance percentages increased with further distance from screening centers, but ORs were not significantly different from 1., Conclusions: Many factors modestly influenced compliance. Consent process was the strongest predictor of compliance., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Examples of cancer prevention and screening trials in the Southwest are reviewed as a platform for highlighting gaps in research on Latino recruitment. Three trials are described, using "message/source/channel" categories as a framework. Each trial engaged community members to facilitate recruitment and developed tailored strategies to meet challenges emerging after recruitment began. Although we affirm that culturally relevant messages, community member referral networks, and adjustment to community realities seem important to Latino recruitment, current anecdotal and research findings do not allow evidence-based recommendations to be made. We suggest a research agenda to further illuminate critical factors for successful Latino recruitment.

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial has a total enrollment goal of almost 150,000 participants. These participants are being recruited at ten screening centers across the United States. All screening centers tested recruitment methodologies during a 1-year pilot phase. The main phase of recruitment was planned to take place over a 3-year period. The majority of participants are being recruited during the main phase of the study. Each of the screening centers tailors recruitment to its individual catchment area. Recruitment strategies in the PLCO trial are described. As the trial began, several protocol changes were made to help to increase enrollment. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated recruitment efforts at the national level. The individual screening centers describe some of the specific recruitment experiences encountered. As the study progressed, the NCI implemented special initiatives to increase the enrollment of minority participants.

Fifty-two patients with advanced seminoma were treated with primary chemotherapy: 44 received cyclophosphamide and weekly cisplatin, and 8 received sequential weekly cisplatin alone. Of the patients treated with chemotherapy alone only 44 achieved a complete remission and 4 were salvaged with further therapy (1 chemotherapy and 3 radiation therapy). These 48 patients (92 per cent) remained free of disease at a followup of 30 to 471 weeks. Six prognostic factors were tested by univariate analysis (chi-square) and only the use of previous chemotherapy predicted for a lower complete remission rate (p equals 0.02). Renal toxicity (greater than 0.4 mg. per dl. increase in serum creatinine) occurred in 2 patients (4 per cent). Neurotoxicity occurred in 16 patients (31 per cent). No fatal toxicity occurred. Cyclophosphamide and weekly cisplatin were well tolerated in patients previously treated with radiation therapy and is the treatment of choice for patients with disseminated seminoma.