Literature DB >> 20709206

Cancer screening trials: nuts and bolts.

Philip C Prorok1, Pamela M Marcus.   

Abstract

The most rigorous and valid approach to evaluating cancer screening modalities is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). RCTs are major undertakings and the intricacies of trial design, operations, and management are generally underappreciated by the typical researcher. The purpose of this article is to inform the reader of the "nuts and bolts" of designing and conducting cancer screening RCTs. Following a brief introduction as to why RCTs are critical in evaluating screening modalities, we discuss design considerations, including the choice of design type and duration of follow-up. We next present an approach to sample-size calculations. We then discuss aspects of trial implementation, including recruitment, randomization, and data management. A discussion of commonly employed data analyses comes next, and includes methods for the primary analysis (comparison of cause-specific mortality rates between the screened and control arms for the cancer of interest), as well as for secondary endpoints such as sensitivity. We follow with a discussion of sequential monitoring and interim analysis techniques, which are used to examine the primary outcome while the trial is ongoing. We close with thoughts on lessons learned from past cancer screening RCTs and provide recommendations for future trials. Throughout the presentation we illustrate topics with examples from completed or ongoing RCTs, including the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial and the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20709206      PMCID: PMC2923646          DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.05.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Oncol        ISSN: 0093-7754            Impact factor:   4.929


  54 in total

1.  The Data Monitoring Committee--bridging the gap between urology and public health epidemiology.

Authors:  P H Smith
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality.

Authors:  S Shapiro; W Venet; P Strax; L Venet; R Roeser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Randomised, controlled trial of faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer. Results for first 107,349 subjects.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; W M Thomas; J Chamberlain; G Pye; J Sheffield; P D James; T W Balfour; S S Amar; N C Armitage; S M Moss
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1989-05-27       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Baseline findings of a randomized feasibility trial of lung cancer screening with spiral CT scan vs chest radiograph: the Lung Screening Study of the National Cancer Institute.

Authors:  John Gohagan; Pamela Marcus; Richard Fagerstrom; Paul Pinsky; Barnett Kramer; Philip Prorok
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  Initial mass screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood test. A prospective randomized study at Funen in Denmark.

Authors:  O Kronborg; C Fenger; O Søndergaard; K M Pedersen; J Olsen
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 2.423

6.  Screening and rescreening for colorectal cancer. A controlled trial of fecal occult blood testing in 27,700 subjects.

Authors:  J Kewenter; S Björk; E Haglind; L Smith; J Svanvik; C Ahrén
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1988-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial.

Authors:  I Andersson; K Aspegren; L Janzon; T Landberg; K Lindholm; F Linell; O Ljungberg; J Ranstam; B Sigfússon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-10-15

8.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  The National Study of Breast Cancer Screening Protocol for a Canadian Randomized Controlled trial of screening for breast cancer in women.

Authors:  A B Miller; G R Howe; C Wall
Journal:  Clin Invest Med       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 0.825

10.  What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial.

Authors:  L Tabár; G Faberberg; N E Day; L Holmberg
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  The importance of the regimen of screening in maximizing the benefit and minimizing the harms.

Authors:  Claudia I Henschke; Kunwei Li; Rowena Yip; Mary Salvatore; David F Yankelevitz
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-04

2.  The WISDOM Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Trial: Simulation Study to Assess Potential Bias and Analytic Approaches.

Authors:  Martin Eklund; Kristine Broglio; Christina Yau; Jason T Connor; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2019-01-08
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.