Literature DB >> 22488488

The impact of PLCO control arm contamination on perceived PSA screening efficacy.

Roman Gulati1, Alex Tsodikov, Elisabeth M Wever, Angela B Mariotto, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Jeffrey Katcher, Harry J de Koning, Ruth Etzioni.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify the extent to which a clinically significant prostate cancer mortality reduction due to screening could have been masked by control arm screening (contamination) in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial.
METHODS: We used three independently developed models of prostate cancer natural history to conduct a virtual PLCO trial. Simulated participants underwent pre-trial screening based on population patterns. The intervention arm followed observed compliance during the trial then resumed population screening. A contaminated control arm followed observed contamination during the trial then resumed population screening, while an uncontaminated control arm discontinued screening upon entry. We assumed a clinically significant screening benefit, applied population treatments and survival patterns, and calculated mortality rate ratios relative to the contaminated and uncontaminated control arms.
RESULTS: The virtual trial reproduced observed incidence, including stage and grade distributions, and control arm mortality after 10 years of complete follow-up. Under the assumed screening benefit, the three models found that contamination increased the mortality rate ratio from 0.68-0.77 to 0.86-0.91, increased the chance of excess mortality in the intervention arm from 0-4 % to 15-28 %, and decreased the power of the trial to detect a mortality difference from 40-70 % to 9-25 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Our computer simulation models indicate that contamination substantially limited the ability of the PLCO to identify a clinically significant screening benefit. While the trial shows annual screening does not reduce mortality relative to population screening, contamination prevents concluding whether screening reduces mortality relative to no screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22488488      PMCID: PMC3556907          DOI: 10.1007/s10552-012-9951-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  27 in total

1.  A population model of prostate cancer incidence.

Authors:  A Tsodikov; A Szabo; J Wegelin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  The prostate cancer prevention trial: design, biases and interpretation of study results.

Authors:  Phyllis J Goodman; Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; John J Crowley; Leslie G Ford; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Repeat prostate biopsy in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; E David Crawford; Barnett S Kramer; Gerald L Andriole; Edward P Gelmann; Robert Grubb; Robert Greenlee; John K Gohagan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  J Cuzick; R Edwards; N Segnan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial.

Authors:  P F Pinsky; A Miller; B S Kramer; T Church; D Reding; P Prorok; E Gelmann; R E Schoen; S Buys; R B Hayes; C D Berg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-01-22       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

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

Review 7.  Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Klaus Eichler; Susanne Hempel; Jennifer Wilby; Lindsey Myers; Lucas M Bachmann; Jos Kleijnen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Lawrence R Ragard; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Ann W Hsing; Grant Izmirlian; Paul F Pinsky; Barnett S Kramer; Anthony B Miller; John K Gohagan; Philip C Prorok
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy.

Authors:  R J Babaian; A Toi; K Kamoi; P Troncoso; J Sweet; R Evans; D Johnston; M Chen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Rob Boer; Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Ronald A M Damhuis; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-06-18       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  31 in total

1.  A 24-year prospective study of dietary α-linolenic acid and lethal prostate cancer.

Authors:  Juan Wu; Kathryn M Wilson; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett; Edward L Giovannucci
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  Optimal healthcare decision making under multiple mathematical models: application in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Dimitris Bertsimas; John Silberholz; Thomas Trikalinos
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2016-09-17

3.  Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate-specific antigen screening.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; Alex Tsodikov; Ruth Etzioni; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; John L Gore; Angela B Mariotto; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Impact of a Prostate Specific Antigen Screening Decision Aid on Clinic Function.

Authors:  Christopher A Warlick; Jerica M Berge; Yen-Yi Ho; Mark Yeazel
Journal:  Urol Pract       Date:  2017-11

5.  Economic Analysis of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and Selective Treatment Strategies.

Authors:  Joshua A Roth; Roman Gulati; John L Gore; Matthew R Cooperberg; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

6.  Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening: Time to Change the Dominant Forces on the Pendulum.

Authors:  Jonathan E Shoag; Peter N Schlegel; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-10-10       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Roman Gulati; Sue M Moss; Jonas Hugosson; Paul F Pinsky; Christine D Berg; Anssi Auvinen; Gerald L Andriole; Monique J Roobol; E David Crawford; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marco Zappa; Marcos Luján; Arnauld Villers; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eric J Feuer; Alex Tsodikov; Angela B Mariotto; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Comparative effectiveness of alternative prostate-specific antigen--based prostate cancer screening strategies: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Roman Gulati; John L Gore; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Response: Reading between the lines of cancer screening trials: using modeling to understand the evidence.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  An Approach Using PSA Levels of 1.5 ng/mL as the Cutoff for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care.

Authors:  E David Crawford; Matt T Rosenberg; Alan W Partin; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Maccini; Stacy Loeb; Curtis A Pettaway; Neal D Shore; Paul Arangua; John Hoenemeyer; Mike Leveridge; Michael Leapman; Peter Pinto; Ian M Thompson; Peter Carroll; James Eastham; Leonard Gomella; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 2.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.