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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: E J Pavlik; P D DePriest; H H Gallion; F R Ueland; M B Reedy; R J Kryscio; J R van Nagell Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: M A Hasson; R M Fagerstrom; D C Kahane; J H Walsh; M H Myers; C Caughman; B Wenzel; J C Haralson; L M Flickinger; L M Turner Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2000-12
Authors: P C Prorok; G L Andriole; R S Bresalier; S S Buys; D Chia; E D Crawford; R Fogel; E P Gelmann; F Gilbert; M A Hasson; R B Hayes; C C Johnson; J S Mandel; A Oberman; B O'Brien; M M Oken; S Rafla; D Reding; W Rutt; J L Weissfeld; L Yokochi; J K Gohagan Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2000-12
Authors: Magnus Törnblom; Henry Eriksson; Stefan Franzén; Ove Gustafsson; Hans Lilja; Ulf Norming; Jonas Hugosson Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: G Michael Allan; Michael P Chetner; Bryan J Donnelly; Neil A Hagen; David Ross; J Dean Ruether; Peter Venner Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Samantha A Barry; Martin C Tammemagi; Sofiya Penek; Elisabeth C Kassan; Caroline S Dorfman; Thomas L Riley; John Commin; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rachel M Ostroff; William L Bigbee; Wilbur Franklin; Larry Gold; Mike Mehan; York E Miller; Harvey I Pass; William N Rom; Jill M Siegfried; Alex Stewart; Jeffrey J Walker; Joel L Weissfeld; Stephen Williams; Dom Zichi; Edward N Brody Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: T P Kilpeläinen; T L J Tammela; L Määttänen; P Kujala; U-H Stenman; M Ala-Opas; T J Murtola; A Auvinen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 7.640