Literature DB >> 22031728

Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial.

Martin M Oken1, Willam G Hocking, Paul A Kvale, Gerald L Andriole, Saundra S Buys, Timothy R Church, E David Crawford, Mona N Fouad, Claudine Isaacs, Douglas J Reding, Joel L Weissfeld, Lance A Yokochi, Barbara O'Brien, Lawrence R Ragard, Joshua M Rathmell, Thomas L Riley, Patrick Wright, Neil Caparaso, Ping Hu, Grant Izmirlian, Paul F Pinsky, Philip C Prorok, Barnett S Kramer, Anthony B Miller, John K Gohagan, Christine D Berg.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22031728     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.1591

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  164 in total

1.  Early mesothelioma revisited.

Authors:  Seiki Hasegawa
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Diagnostic evaluation following a positive lung screening chest radiograph in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  William G Hocking; Martin C Tammemagi; John Commins; Martin M Oken; Paul A Kvale; Ping Hu; Lawrence R Ragard; Tom L Riley; Paul Pinsky; Thomas M Beck; Philip C Prorok
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 5.705

Review 3.  Lung cancer screening: past, present and future.

Authors:  James H Finigan; Jeffrey A Kern
Journal:  Clin Chest Med       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 2.878

4.  Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography.

Authors:  Anthony B Miller
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-08-05

Review 5.  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

6.  Results of the national lung cancer screening trial: where are we now?

Authors:  Neel P Chudgar; Peter R Bucciarelli; Elizabeth M Jeffries; Nabil P Rizk; Bernard J Park; Prasad S Adusumilli; David R Jones
Journal:  Thorac Surg Clin       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 1.750

Review 7.  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

8.  Participants' Views of Retention Materials Used in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

Authors:  Shannon M Pretzel; Tara S Andrews; Karen Broski; Jeffery C Childs; Lisa H Gren; Sheryl L Ogden; Jerome Mabie; Brett Thomas; Heather M Rozjabek; Pamela M Marcus
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2015-09-20

9.  Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening.

Authors:  Martin C Tammemägi; Hormuzd A Katki; William G Hocking; Timothy R Church; Neil Caporaso; Paul A Kvale; Anil K Chaturvedi; Gerard A Silvestri; Tom L Riley; John Commins; Christine D Berg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Should Never-Smokers at Increased Risk for Lung Cancer Be Screened?

Authors:  Kevin Ten Haaf; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 15.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.