Literature DB >> 19801174

Limited contamination in the Dutch-Belgian randomized lung cancer screening trial (NELSON).

Eleonora Baecke1, Harry J de Koning, Suzie J Otto, Carola A van Iersel, Rob J van Klaveren.   

Abstract

Purpose of this study was to determine the rate of contamination, defined as lung cancer screening in the control arm, of the Dutch-Belgian randomized lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) as contamination adversely affects the power of a trial. The NELSON cohort includes 15,822 high-risk current and former smokers, aged 50-75 years, equally randomized to the screen and control arm. Questionnaires were sent to a sample of 1460 male subjects of the control arm, stratified on smoking determinants. The response rate was 73.0%. The participants were asked whether they received a chest X-ray or CT scan in the last 4 years and, if so, when and for what reason it had been performed. Examinations performed after randomization because of "Precaution" or "No examination was offered by NELSON" were regarded as contamination. In the first 24 months after randomization 3.1% (2.3-3.8%) of the respondents received a lung cancer screening examination. Contamination reached a non-significant peak within the first 3 months after randomization, with a lower limit of 2.5 and an upper limit of 3.1 per 1000 person-months. This screening rate did not differ from the background rates in the last 18 months before randomization. No significant differences were observed between current and former smokers. In conclusion, the rate of contamination among male subjects of the control arm of the NELSON trial is low and is not likely to jeopardize the power of the trial. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19801174     DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.08.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lung Cancer        ISSN: 0169-5002            Impact factor:   5.705


  6 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography: concerns about the application in low-risk individuals.

Authors:  Jiu-Wei Cui; Wei Li; Fu-Jun Han; Yu-Di Liu
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2015-06

3.  Semi-automated pulmonary nodule interval segmentation using the NLST data.

Authors:  Yoganand Balagurunathan; Andrew Beers; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Michael McNitt-Gray; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Bensheng Zhao; Jiangguo Zhu; Hao Yang; Stephen S F Yip; Hugo J W L Aerts; Sandy Napel; Dmitrii Cherezov; Kenny Cha; Heang-Ping Chan; Carlos Flores; Alberto Garcia; Robert Gillies; Dmitry Goldgof
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.

Authors:  Asha Bonney; Reem Malouf; Corynne Marchal; David Manners; Kwun M Fong; Henry M Marshall; Louis B Irving; Renée Manser
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-08-03

5.  CT-Screening for lung cancer does not increase the use of anxiolytic or antidepressant medication.

Authors:  Linda Kaerlev; Maria Iachina; Jesper Holst Pedersen; Anders Green; Bente Mertz Nørgård
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 6.  Overdiagnosis of lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography screening: meta-analysis of the randomised clinical trials.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Theis Voss; Frederik Martiny; Volkert Siersma; Alexandra Barratt; Bruno Heleno
Journal:  Breathe (Sheff)       Date:  2020-03
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.