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]

Background and Study Aim: Inadequate colorectal cancer screening wastes limited endoscopic resources. We examined patients factors associated with inadequate flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) screening at baseline screening and repeat screening 3-5 years later in 10 geographically-dispersed screening centers participating in the ongoing Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.Methods: A total of 64,554 participants (aged 55-74) completed baseline questionnaires and underwent FSG at baseline. Of these, 39,385 participants returned for repeat screening. We used logistic regression models to assess factors that are associated with inadequate FSG (defined as a study in which the depth of insertion of FSG was <50 cm or visual inspection was limited to <90% of the mucosal surface but without detection of a polyp or mass).Results: Of 7084 (11%) participants with inadequate FSG at baseline, 6496 (91.7%) had <50 cm depth of insertion (75.3% due to patient discomfort) and 500 (7.1%) participants had adequate depth of insertion but suboptimal bowel preparation. Compared to 55-59 year age group, advancing age in 5-year increments (odds ratios (OR) from 1.08 to 1.51) and female sex (OR = 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.27-2.54) were associated with inadequate FSG. Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) was associated with reduced odds (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.62-0.72). Inadequate FSG screening at baseline was associated with inadequate FSG at repeat screening (OR = 6.24; 95% CI: 5.78-6.75).Conclusions: Sedation should be considered for patients with inadequate FSG or an alternative colorectal cancer screening method should be recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Determining whether screening with multicancer detection (MCD) tests saves lives requires randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To inform RCT design, we estimated cancer-mortality outcomes from hypothetical MCD RCTs., Methods: We used the Hu-Zelen model, previously used to plan the NLST, to estimate mortality reductions, sample-size, and power for 9 cancers for different RCT design parameters and MCD test parameters., Results: Our base-case RCT with 5 yearly screens and 100,000 people ages 60-74 in each arm, who also undergo standard-of-care screens, has 87-89% power to detect an 9-10% mortality reduction (NNS = 578-724) over 7-9 years. The majority of prevented deaths were from lung-cancers (base-case (64-66%) and all sensitivity analyses), 8-10% from colorectal-cancer, and 26% from the other 7-cancers, mostly from stomach/ovary/esophagus (due to excellent stage-1 survival) and less from liver/pancreas (poor stage-1 survival) or head/neck-cancer/lymphoma (excellent stage-4 survival). There was limited power for mortality reductions at most individual cancer sites. Base-case findings were sensitive to test sensitivity, stage-shifts, and mean sojourn times in the preclinical state (especially for lung-cancer), but 90% power could be recovered by recruiting a substantially higher risk population., Conclusions: Large-scale MCD RCTs would have 89% power to detect a ∼10% cancer-mortality reduction over a relatively short 7-9 year timeframe from trial entry. The estimated NNS for MCD RCTs compares favorably to mammographic screening. Most prevented cancer-deaths in a well-powered MCD RCT would likely be from lung-cancer. Non-lung/CRC cancer sites could be a meaningful proportion of prevented cancer-deaths but power is insufficient to isolate non-lung-cancer mortality reductions., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Background: Cancer screening trials have required large sample sizes and long time-horizons to demonstrate cancer mortality reductions, the primary goal of cancer screening. We examine assumptions and potential power gains from exploiting information from testing control-arm specimens, which we call the "intended effect" (IE) analysis that we explain in detail herein. The IE analysis is particularly suited to tests that can be conducted on stored specimens in the control arm, such as stored blood for multicancer detection (MCD) tests., Methods: We simulated hypothetical MCD screening trials to compare power and sample size for the standard vs IE analysis. Under two assumptions that we detail herein, we projected the IE analysis for 3 existing screening trials (National Lung Screening Trial [NLST], Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study [MINN-FOBT-A], and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial-colorectal component [PLCO-CRC])., Results: Compared with the standard analysis for the 3 existing trials, the IE design could have reduced cancer-specific mortality P values 6-fold (NLST), 33-fold (MINN-FOBT-A), or 260 000-fold (PLCO-CRC) or, alternately, reduced sample size (90% power) by 25% (NLST), 47% (MINN-FOBT-A), or 63% (PLCO-CRC). For potential MCD trial designs requiring 100 000 subjects per arm to achieve 90% power for multicancer mortality for the standard analysis, the IE analysis achieves 90% power for only 37 500-50 000 per arm, depending on assumptions concerning control-arm test-positives., Conclusions: Testing stored specimens in the control arm of screening trials to conduct the IE analysis could substantially increase power to reduce sample size or accelerate trials and could provide particularly strong power gains for MCD tests., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

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.

Background: Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy reduces incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Previously reported results from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial had a median follow-up of 12 years. Whether the benefit is sustained over the long term and remains so in both sexes and all age groups is uncertain. We report long-term results after an additional 5 years of follow-up., Methods: Participants in the PLCO trial were recruited from the general population in the catchment areas of ten screening centres across the USA, without previous diagnosis of a prostate, lung, colorectal, or ovarian cancer or current cancer treatment. From 1993 to 2001, participants aged 55-74 years were randomly assigned to usual care or flexible sigmoidoscopy at baseline and again at 3 years or 5 years. Randomisation was done within blocks and stratified by centre, age, and sex. The primary endpoint was cause-specific mortality and secondary endpoints included incidence and tumour staging; cause of death was determined without knowledge of study arm. In this analysis, we assessed incidence and mortality rates overall, by time-period, and by combinations of sex, age at baseline (55-64 years/65-74 years), location (distal/proximal), and stage, on an intent-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00002540., Findings: After a median follow-up of 15·8 years (IQR 13·2-18·0) for incidence and 16·8 years (14·4-18·9) for mortality, the incidence of colorectal cancer was significantly lower in the intervention arm (1461 cases; 12·55 per 10 000 person-years) than with usual care (1761 cases; 15·33 per 10 000 person-years; relative risk [RR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·76-0·88). Similarly, mortality was lower in the intervention arm (417 deaths; 3·37 per 10 000 person-years) than the usual care arm (549; 4·48 per 10 000 person-years; RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·66-0·85). The reduction in mortality was limited to the distal colon, with no significant effect in the proximal colon. Reductions in incidence were significantly larger in men than women (p interaction =0·04) and reductions in mortality were significantly larger in the older age group (65-74 years vs 55-64 years at baseline; p interaction =0·01)., Interpretation: Reductions in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality from flexible sigmoidoscopy screening are sustained over the long term. Differences by sex and age should be examined in other ongoing trials of colorectal cancer screening to help clarify if different screening strategies would achieve greater risk reduction., Funding: Extended follow-up was funded under NIH contract HHSN261201600007I., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Screening tests are typically evaluated for a single disease, but multiple tests for multiple diseases are performed in practice. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial assessed testing for four cancers simultaneously and can be viewed as a multiphasic cancer intervention. This paper presents overall and multiphasic findings of this trial., Methods: The PLCO trial was a randomized multi-center trial conducted at ten screening centers in the US. Participants were 76,682 men and 78,215 women ages 55 - 74 and free of the target cancers at trial entry. Screening tests were PSA and digital rectal examination for prostate cancer, chest x-ray for lung cancer, flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer, CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian cancer. Outcomes and harms of screening were assessed including compliance, test results, incidence, mortality, false positives and overdiagnosis., Results: Screening compliance was 82%, 72,820 (8%) of 906,064 exams were positive, the overall PPV was 4.2% and the cancer detection rate was 3.38/1000. A mortality reduction was observed only for colorectal cancer (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 - 0.85) with no effect on all-cause mortality. Ninety-six percent of positive exams were falsely positive and there was a suggestion of overdiagnosis of prostate and possibly ovarian cancers. Multiphasic testing resulted in 7374 men and 2748 women experiencing multiple false positive results from multiple types of tests., Conclusion: Multiphasic cancer screening led to reduced mortality for one target cancer and imposed a burden on the health care system that included substantial false positives and likely overdiagnosis., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)

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.

Background: Two large-scale prostate cancer screening trials using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have given conflicting results in terms of the efficacy of such screening. One of those trials, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, previously reported outcomes with 13 years of follow-up. This study presents updated findings from the PLCO trial., Methods: The PLCO trial randomized subjects from 1993 to 2001 to an intervention or control arm. Intervention-arm men received annual PSA tests for 6 years and digital rectal examinations for 4 years. This study used a linkage with the National Death Index to extend mortality follow-up to a maximum of 19 years after randomization., Results: Men were randomized to the intervention arm (n = 38,340) or the control arm (n = 38,343). The median follow-up time was 14.8 years (25th/75th, 12.7/16.5 years) in the intervention arm and 14.7 years (25th/75th, 12.6/16.4 years) in the control arm. There were 255 deaths from prostate cancer in the intervention arm and 244 deaths from prostate cancer in the control arm; this meant a rate ratio (RR) of 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.24). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.977 (95% CI, 0.950-1.004). It was estimated that 86% of the men in the control arm and 99% of the men in the intervention arm received any PSA testing during the trial, and the estimated yearly screening-phase PSA testing rates were 46% and 84%, respectively., Conclusions: Extended follow-up of the PLCO trial over a median of 15 years continues to indicate no reduction in prostate cancer mortality for the intervention arm versus the control arm. Because of the high rate of control-arm PSA testing, this finding can be viewed as showing no benefit of organized screening versus opportunistic screening. Cancer 2017;123:592-599. © 2016 American Cancer Society., (© 2016 This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: Ascertaining incident cancers is a critical component of cancer-focused epidemiologic cohorts and of cancer prevention trials. Potential methods: for cancer case ascertainment include active follow-up and passive linkage with state cancer registries. Here we compare the two approaches in a large cancer screening trial., Methods: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial enrolled 154,955 subjects at ten U.S. centers and followed them for all-cancer incidence. Cancers were ascertained by an active follow-up process involving annual questionnaires, retrieval of records and medical record abstracting to ascertain and confirm cancers. For a subset of centers, linkage with state cancer registries was also performed. We assessed the agreement of the two methods in ascertaining incident cancers from 1993 to 2009 in 80,083 subjects from six PLCO centers where cancers were ascertained both by active follow-up and through linkages with 14 state registries., Results: The ratio (times 100) of confirmed cases ascertained by registry linkage compared to active follow-up was 96.4 (95% CI: 95.1-98.2). Of cancers ascertained by either method, 86.6% and 83.5% were identified by active follow-up and by registry linkage, respectively. Of cancers missed by active follow-up, 30% were after subjects were lost to follow-up and 16% were reported but could not be confirmed. Of cancers missed by the registries, 27% were not sent to the state registry of the subject's current address at the time of linkage., Conclusion: Linkage with state registries identified a similar number of cancers as active follow-up and can be a cost-effective method to ascertain incident cancers in a large cohort., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial originally reported no mortality benefit of ovarian cancer screening after a median of 12.4years of follow-up. The UKCTOCS screening trial failed to show a statistically significant mortality reduction in the primary analysis but reported an apparent increased mortality benefit in trial years 7-14 compared to 0-7. Here we report an updated analysis of PLCO with extended mortality follow-up., Methods: Participants were randomized from 1993 to 2001 at ten U.S. centers to an intervention or usual care arm. Intervention arm women were screened for ovarian cancer with annual trans-vaginal ultrasound (TVU) (4years) and CA-125 (6years), with a fixed cutoff at 35U/mL for CA-125. The original follow-up period was for up to 13years (median follow-up 12.4years); in this analysis follow-up for mortality was extended by up to 6years., Results: 39,105 (intervention) and 39,111 (usual care) women were randomized, of which 34,253 and 34,304, respectively, had at least one ovary at baseline. Median follow-up was 14.7years in each arm and maximum follow-up 19.2years in each arm. A total of 187 (intervention) and 176 (usual care) deaths from ovarian cancer were observed, for a risk-ratio of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.87-1.30). Risk-ratios were similar for study years 0-7 (RR=1.04), 7-14 (RR=1.06) and 14+ (RR=1.09). The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.97-1.05). Ovarian cancer specific survival was not significantly different across trial arms (p=0.16)., Conclusion: Extended follow-up of PLCO indicated no mortality benefit from screening for ovarian cancer with CA-125 and TVU., Competing Interests: Statement The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The goal of screening mammography is to detect small malignant tumors before they grow large enough to cause symptoms. Effective screening should therefore lead to the detection of a greater number of small tumors, followed by fewer large tumors over time., Methods: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, 1975 through 2012, to calculate the tumor-size distribution and size-specific incidence of breast cancer among women 40 years of age or older. We then calculated the size-specific cancer case fatality rate for two time periods: a baseline period before the implementation of widespread screening mammography (1975 through 1979) and a period encompassing the most recent years for which 10 years of follow-up data were available (2000 through 2002)., Results: After the advent of screening mammography, the proportion of detected breast tumors that were small (invasive tumors measuring <2 cm or in situ carcinomas) increased from 36% to 68%; the proportion of detected tumors that were large (invasive tumors measuring ≥2 cm) decreased from 64% to 32%. However, this trend was less the result of a substantial decrease in the incidence of large tumors (with 30 fewer cases of cancer observed per 100,000 women in the period after the advent of screening than in the period before screening) and more the result of a substantial increase in the detection of small tumors (with 162 more cases of cancer observed per 100,000 women). Assuming that the underlying disease burden was stable, only 30 of the 162 additional small tumors per 100,000 women that were diagnosed were expected to progress to become large, which implied that the remaining 132 cases of cancer per 100,000 women were overdiagnosed (i.e., cases of cancer were detected on screening that never would have led to clinical symptoms). The potential of screening to lower breast cancer mortality is reflected in the declining incidence of larger tumors. However, with respect to only these large tumors, the decline in the size-specific case fatality rate suggests that improved treatment was responsible for at least two thirds of the reduction in breast cancer mortality., Conclusions: Although the rate of detection of large tumors fell after the introduction of screening mammography, the more favorable size distribution was primarily the result of the additional detection of small tumors. Women were more likely to have breast cancer that was overdiagnosed than to have earlier detection of a tumor that was destined to become large. The reduction in breast cancer mortality after the implementation of screening mammography was predominantly the result of improved systemic therapy.

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.

Length-biased sampling exists in screening programs where longer duration disease is detected during the preclinical stage because a longer sojourn time (preclinical duration) has a higher probability of being screen detected. By modeling the course of disease, we quantify the effect of length-biased sampling on clinical duration when cases are subject to periodic screening with variable test sensitivity. We use the highly flexible bivariate lognormal density to jointly model preclinical and clinical durations, and we model screening test sensitivity as a function of the sojourn time and number of previous false negative screens. We show that the mean clinical duration among screen-detected cases can be up to 40% higher, with shrinking standard deviation, than those among nonscreen-detected cases, due to biased sampling alone, irrespective of any possible benefit (increased survival time arising from earlier detection or reduction in mortality). These findings will aid in the design and interpretation of screening trials., (© 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.)

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The randomized PLCO trial was designed to answer four primary questions: does screening for these cancers using often promoted tests reduce cancer-specific mortality? Nearly 155,000 men and women were allocated to screening or usual care arms in a 1:1 ratio under a centralized, secure randomization algorithm at ten competitively selected screening centers nationwide. Screened men received PSA blood tests and digital rectal examinations. Screened women received CA125 blood tests and trans-vaginal ultrasound. Both men and women in the screened arm received anterolateral view chest x-ray and 60 cm flexible sigmoidoscopy. Blood specimens were collected at each screening visit and buccal cell DNA was collected once from the usual care participants. Histology slides were collected for cancer cases. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire covering health and risk factors and a dietary questionnaire. Data collected on standardized machine-readable forms were scanned remotely at screening and laboratory sites utilizing PLCO dedicated, NCI provided and configured computer systems for quality checks, archiving, and analysis. Comprehensive quality assurance was implemented over recruitment, consenting, randomization, screening, data management, records keeping, patient-specific screening results reporting, follow-up, and data analysis. Performance and data quality were monitored on-site and remotely by data edits, site visits, and random record audits. Specially trained and certified professionals performed screening procedures and medical record abstracting. An independent committee of medical specialists reviewed and certified case-specific cause of death. Scientific leadership was provided by NCI Project Officers, PLCO principal investigators, external consultants, and an independent data and safety monitoring board.

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.

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust and valid approach to evaluate screening for diseases. Many in the diabetes research community have advocated sole reliance on RCTs for designing diabetes screening policies. However, the challenges of conducting RCTs of screening for type 2 diabetes may have been underappreciated. Purpose Discuss the key theoretical concepts and practical challenges of designing and conducting RCTs of diabetes screening. Methods Narrative and critical review of the literature pertaining to the theory and practice of designing and conducting RCTs of diabetes screening. Results We present the theoretical basis of a diabetes screening trial, using concepts developed mainly in studies of cancer screening and illustrations from the Cambridge component of the Anglo Danish Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In peOple with screeN-detected diabetes in primary care (ADDITION-Cambridge), the only extant trial of diabetes screening. We examine design issues, including the appropriate trial question, choice of design, and duration of follow-up, and address aspects of trial implementation, including recruitment, randomization, endpoint determination, sample size requirements, and screening interval. Limitations The limited number of trials of diabetes screening did not permit us to illustrate many of the practical difficulties one encounters when implementing theoretical concepts. Conclusion When diabetes screening trials are planned, we suggest careful consideration to potential areas of practical difficulty, especially the need for particularly large sample sizes and extended follow-up, and the choice of appropriate outcomes and screening intervals.

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.

Lung cancer is the major cause of cancer mortality. One of the aims of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) was to determine if annual screening chest radiographs reduce lung cancer mortality. We enrolled 154,900 individuals, aged 55-74 years; 77,445 were randomized to the intervention arm and received an annual chest radiograph for 3 or 4 years. Participants with a positive screen underwent diagnostic evaluation under guidance of their primary physician. Methods of diagnosis or exclusion of cancer, interval from screen to diagnosis, and factors predicting diagnostic testing were evaluated. One or more positive screens occurred in 17% of participants. Positive screens resulted in biopsy in 3%, with 54% positive for cancer. Biopsy likelihood was associated with a mass, smoking, age, and family history of lung cancer. Diagnostic testing stopped after a chest radiograph or computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in over half. After a second or subsequent positive screen, evaluation stopped after comparison to prior radiographs in over half. Of 308 screen-detected cancers, the diagnosis was established by thoracotomy/thoracoscopy in 47.7%, needle biopsy in 27.6%, bronchoscopy in 20.1% and mediastinoscopy in 2.9%. Eighty-four percent of screen-detected lung cancers were diagnosed within 6 months. Diagnostic evaluations following a positive screen were conducted in a timely fashion. Lung cancer was diagnosed by tissue biopsy or cytology in all cases. Lung cancer was excluded during evaluation of positive screening examinations by clinical or radiographic evaluation in all but 1.4% who required a tissue biopsy., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The benefits of endoscopic testing for colorectal-cancer screening are uncertain. We evaluated the effect of screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy on colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality., Methods: From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 154,900 men and women 55 to 74 years of age either to screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy, with a repeat screening at 3 or 5 years, or to usual care. Cases of colorectal cancer and deaths from the disease were ascertained., Results: Of the 77,445 participants randomly assigned to screening (intervention group), 83.5% underwent baseline flexible sigmoidoscopy and 54.0% were screened at 3 or 5 years. The incidence of colorectal cancer after a median follow-up of 11.9 years was 11.9 cases per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (1012 cases), as compared with 15.2 cases per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (1287 cases), which represents a 21% reduction (relative risk, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.85; P<0.001). Significant reductions were observed in the incidence of both distal colorectal cancer (479 cases in the intervention group vs. 669 cases in the usual-care group; relative risk, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.80; P<0.001) and proximal colorectal cancer (512 cases vs. 595 cases; relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.97; P=0.01). There were 2.9 deaths from colorectal cancer per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (252 deaths), as compared with 3.9 per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (341 deaths), which represents a 26% reduction (relative risk, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.87; P<0.001). Mortality from distal colorectal cancer was reduced by 50% (87 deaths in the intervention group vs. 175 in the usual-care group; relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64; P<0.001); mortality from proximal colorectal cancer was unaffected (143 and 147 deaths, respectively; relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.22; P=0.81)., Conclusions: Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a significant decrease in colorectal-cancer incidence (in both the distal and proximal colon) and mortality (distal colon only). (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PLCO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.).

Objective: To determine whether CA-125 velocity is a statistically significant predictor of ovarian cancer and develop a classification rule to screen for ovarian cancer., Methods: In the ovarian component of the PLCO cancer screening trial, 28,038 women aged 55-74 had at least two CA-125 screening tests. Ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 72 (0.26%) women. A multiple logistic regression model was developed to evaluate CA-125 velocity and other related covariates as predictors of ovarian cancer. Predictive accuracy was assessed by the concordance index and measures of discrimination and calibration while the fit of the model was assessed by the Hosmer and Lemeshow's goodness-of-fit χ(2)test., Results: CA-125 velocity decreased as the number of CA-125 measurements increased but was unaffected by age at baseline screen and family history of ovarian cancer. The average velocity (19.749U/ml per month) of the cancer group was more than 500 times the average velocity (0.035U/ml per month) of the non-cancer group., Conclusion: Among six covariates used in the model, CA-125 velocity and time intervals between baseline and second to last screening test and between last two screening tests were statistically significant predictors of ovarian cancer. The chance of having ovarian cancer increased as velocity increased, and the chance decreased when the time intervals between baseline and the second to last screening test and between last two screening tests of an individual increased., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Diagnosis of colorectal cancer after negative findings on endoscopic evaluation raises concern about the effectiveness of endoscopic screening. We contrast screening-detected cancers with cancers not detected by screening among participants assigned to flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial to determine the reasons for the lack of detection of prevalent lesions., Design: Cancers detected within 1 year of a screening FSG with abnormal findings were classified as screening detected. All other cancers were categorized, based on cancer stage and years until detection, as either not detectable or prevalent but not detected at the time of screening., Setting/patients: A total of 77,447 subjects in the multicenter PLCO trial., Main Outcome Measurements: A total of 977 colorectal cancers were diagnosed with a mean follow-up of 11.5 years., Results: A total of 243 (24.9%) cancers were screening detected, 470 (48.1%) were not detectable at screening, and 264 (27.0%) were considered prevalent but not detected. Among prevalent nondetected lesions, 35.6% (n = 94) were attributed to problems in patient compliance (58 never screened, 34 delayed colonoscopy follow-up, and 2 inadequate bowel preparation), 43.9% (n = 116) were attributable to a limitation in the FSG procedure (97 beyond the reach of the sigmoidoscope and 19 inadequate depth of insertion on FSG), and 20.5% (n = 54) were caused by endoscopist limitation (33 missed on FSG, 21 missed at initial colonoscopy) (P < .0001). Had colonoscopy instead of FSG been used for screening, an additional 15.6% and as many as 19.0% of cancers may have been screening-detected., Limitations: These estimates are reasonable approximations, but biological variability precludes precise determinations., Conclusions: Prevalent nondetected cancers were more often attributable to problems with patient compliance or limitations in the FSG procedure than to missed lesions. Colonoscopy instead of FSG could have moderately increased the detection of cancer via screening., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Context: The effect on mortality of screening for lung cancer with modern chest radiographs is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the effect on mortality of screening for lung cancer using radiographs in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized controlled trial that involved 154,901 participants aged 55 through 74 years, 77,445 of whom were assigned to annual screenings and 77,456 to usual care at 1 of 10 screening centers across the United States between November 1993 and July 2001. The data from a subset of eligible participants for the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which compared chest radiograph with spiral computed tomographic (CT) screening, were analyzed., Intervention: Participants in the intervention group were offered annual posteroanterior view chest radiograph for 4 years. Diagnostic follow-up of positive screening results was determined by participants and their health care practitioners. Participants in the usual care group were offered no interventions and received their usual medical care. All diagnosed cancers, deaths, and causes of death were ascertained through the earlier of 13 years of follow-up or until December 31, 2009., Main Outcome Measures: Mortality from lung cancer. Secondary outcomes included lung cancer incidence, complications associated with diagnostic procedures, and all-cause mortality., Results: Screening adherence was 86.6% at baseline and 79% to 84% at years 1 through 3; the rate of screening use in the usual care group was 11%. Cumulative lung cancer incidence rates through 13 years of follow-up were 20.1 per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group and 19.2 per 10,000 person-years in the usual care group (rate ratio [RR]; 1.05, 95% CI, 0.98-1.12). A total of 1213 lung cancer deaths were observed in the intervention group compared with 1230 in usual care group through 13 years (mortality RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.22). Stage and histology were similar between the 2 groups. The RR of mortality for the subset of participants eligible for the NLST, over the same 6-year follow-up period, was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81-1.10)., Conclusion: Annual screening with chest radiograph did not reduce lung cancer mortality compared with usual care., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002540.

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.

Context: Screening for ovarian cancer with cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) and transvaginal ultrasound has an unknown effect on mortality., Objective: To evaluate the effect of screening for ovarian cancer on mortality in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized controlled trial of 78,216 women aged 55 to 74 years assigned to undergo either annual screening (n = 39,105) or usual care (n = 39,111) at 10 screening centers across the United States between November 1993 and July 2001. Intervention The intervention group was offered annual screening with CA-125 for 6 years and transvaginal ultrasound for 4 years. Participants and their health care practitioners received the screening test results and managed evaluation of abnormal results. The usual care group was not offered annual screening with CA-125 for 6 years or transvaginal ultrasound but received their usual medical care. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 13 years (median [range], 12.4 years [10.9-13.0 years]) for cancer diagnoses and death until February 28, 2010., Main Outcome Measures: Mortality from ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancers. Secondary outcomes included ovarian cancer incidence and complications associated with screening examinations and diagnostic procedures., Results: Ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 212 women (5.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 176 (4.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (rate ratio [RR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.48). There were 118 deaths caused by ovarian cancer (3.1 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 100 deaths (2.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (mortality RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.82-1.71). Of 3285 women with false-positive results, 1080 underwent surgical follow-up; of whom, 163 women experienced at least 1 serious complication (15%). There were 2924 deaths due to other causes (excluding ovarian, colorectal, and lung cancer) (76.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 2914 deaths (76.2 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06)., Conclusions: Among women in the general US population, simultaneous screening with CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound compared with usual care did not reduce ovarian cancer mortality. Diagnostic evaluation following a false-positive screening test result was associated with complications. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002540.