Literature DB >> 17131307

Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON).

Carola A van Iersel1, Harry J de Koning, Gerrit Draisma, Willem P T M Mali, Ernst Th Scholten, Kristiaan Nackaerts, Mathias Prokop, J Dik F Habbema, Mathijs Oudkerk, Rob J van Klaveren.   

Abstract

A method to obtain the optimal selection criteria, taking into account available resources and capacity and the impact on power, is presented for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer screening trial (NELSON). NELSON investigates whether 16-detector multi-slice computed tomography screening will decrease lung cancer mortality compared to no screening. A questionnaire was sent to 335,441 (mainly) men, aged 50-75. Smoking exposure (years smoked, cigarettes/day, years quit) was determined, and expected lung cancer mortality was estimated for different selection scenarios for the 106,931 respondents, using lung cancer mortality data by level of smoking exposure (US Cancer Prevention Study I and II). Selection criteria were chosen so that the required response among eligible subjects to reach sufficient sample size was minimised and the required sample size was within our capacity. Inviting current and former smokers (quit <or= 10 years ago) who smoked >15 cigarettes/day during >25 years or >10 cigarettes/day during >30 years was most optimal. With a power of 80%, 17,300-27,900 participants are needed to show a 20-25% lung cancer mortality reduction 10 years after randomisation. Until October 18, 2005 11,103 (first recruitment round) and 4,325 (second recruitment round) (total = 15,428) participants have been randomised. Selecting participants for lung cancer screening trials based on risk estimates is feasible and helpful to minimize sample size and costs. When pooling with Danish trial data (n = +/-4,000) NELSON is the only trial without screening in controls that is expected to have 80% power to show a lung cancer mortality reduction of at least 25% 10 years after randomisation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17131307     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.22134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  123 in total

1.  The impact of radiologists' expertise on screen results decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Matthijs Oudkerk; Pim A de Jong; Willem P Mali; Harry J M Groen; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design.

Authors:  Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Timothy R Church; Richard M Fagerstrom; Barbara Galen; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Jonathan Goldin; John K Gohagan; Bruce Hillman; Carl Jaffe; Barnett S Kramer; David Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Mitchell Schnall; Daniel C Sullivan; Dorothy Sullivan; Carl J Zylak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Performance of ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction in lung cancer screening: limiting radiation exposure to the equivalent of conventional chest X-ray imaging.

Authors:  Adrian Huber; Julia Landau; Lukas Ebner; Yanik Bütikofer; Lars Leidolt; Barbara Brela; Michelle May; Johannes Heverhagen; Andreas Christe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Tumor Budding Correlates With the Protumor Immune Microenvironment and Is an Independent Prognostic Factor for Recurrence of Stage I Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Kyuichi Kadota; Yi-Chen Yeh; Jonathan Villena-Vargas; Leonid Cherkassky; Esther N Drill; Camelia S Sima; David R Jones; William D Travis; Prasad S Adusumilli
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  Improving selection criteria for lung cancer screening. The potential role of emphysema.

Authors:  Pablo Sanchez-Salcedo; David O Wilson; Juan P de-Torres; Joel L Weissfeld; Juan Berto; Arantzazu Campo; Ana B Alcaide; Jesús Pueyo; Gorka Bastarrika; Luis M Seijo; Maria J Pajares; Ruben Pio; Luis M Montuenga; Javier J Zulueta
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 21.405

6.  Lung cancer screening: current status.

Authors:  Theresa C McLoud
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 7.  Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a review of current status.

Authors:  Henry M Marshall; Rayleen V Bowman; Ian A Yang; Kwun M Fong; Christine D Berg
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 8.  Implementing lung cancer screening in the real world: opportunity, challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Robert J Optican; Caroline Chiles
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08

9.  Cardiac valve calcifications on low-dose unenhanced ungated chest computed tomography: inter-observer and inter-examination reliability, agreement and variability.

Authors:  Robbert W van Hamersvelt; Martin J Willemink; Richard A P Takx; Anouk L M Eikendal; Ricardo P J Budde; Tim Leiner; Christian P Mol; Ivana Isgum; Pim A de Jong
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Risk factors assessment and risk prediction models in lung cancer screening candidates.

Authors:  Mariusz Adamek; Ewa Wachuła; Sylwia Szabłowska-Siwik; Agnieszka Boratyn-Nowicka; Damian Czyżewski
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.