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