Uraujh Yousaf-Khan1, Nanda Horeweg2, Carlijn van der Aalst2, Kevin Ten Haaf2, Mathijs Oudkerk3, Harry de Koning2. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.yousaf@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Individuals who are younger, have a high socioeconomic background and/or have a healthy lifestyle are more inclined to participate in screening trials. This form of bias may affect the generalizability of study results to the target population. This study aimed to investigate the generalizability of the NELSON lung cancer screening trial to the Dutch population. METHODS:People at high risk for developing lung cancer were identified by sending a health questionnaire to 606,409 persons aged 50-74 years, based on population registries. Eligible subjects received an invitation to participate (n = 30,051). 15,822 subjects agreed to participate and were randomized, whereas 15,137 did not respond (so-called eligible nonresponders). Baseline characteristics and mortality profiles were compared between control group participants and eligible nonresponders. RESULTS: Participants had better self-reported health (p = 0.02), were younger, more physically active, higher educated, and more often former smokers compared with eligible nonresponders (all p < 0.001). No differences were seen in self-reported outcomes of pulmonary tests, history of lung cancer, and smoked pack-years. Mortality due to all-causes (p < 0.001) and mortality classification separately was lower among participants. However, the proportion of subjects death due to cancer was higher among participants (62.4% vs. 54.9%). CONCLUSION: Modest differences in baseline characteristics between participants and eligible nonresponders, led to minor differences in mortality profiles. However, group sizes were large and therefore it seems unlikely that these small differences will influence the generalizability of the NELSON trial. Results of the NELSON trial can roughly be used to predict the effect of population-based lung cancer screening.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Individuals who are younger, have a high socioeconomic background and/or have a healthy lifestyle are more inclined to participate in screening trials. This form of bias may affect the generalizability of study results to the target population. This study aimed to investigate the generalizability of the NELSON lung cancer screening trial to the Dutch population. METHODS:People at high risk for developing lung cancer were identified by sending a health questionnaire to 606,409 persons aged 50-74 years, based on population registries. Eligible subjects received an invitation to participate (n = 30,051). 15,822 subjects agreed to participate and were randomized, whereas 15,137 did not respond (so-called eligible nonresponders). Baseline characteristics and mortality profiles were compared between control group participants and eligible nonresponders. RESULTS:Participants had better self-reported health (p = 0.02), were younger, more physically active, higher educated, and more often former smokers compared with eligible nonresponders (all p < 0.001). No differences were seen in self-reported outcomes of pulmonary tests, history of lung cancer, and smoked pack-years. Mortality due to all-causes (p < 0.001) and mortality classification separately was lower among participants. However, the proportion of subjects death due to cancer was higher among participants (62.4% vs. 54.9%). CONCLUSION: Modest differences in baseline characteristics between participants and eligible nonresponders, led to minor differences in mortality profiles. However, group sizes were large and therefore it seems unlikely that these small differences will influence the generalizability of the NELSON trial. Results of the NELSON trial can roughly be used to predict the effect of population-based lung cancer screening.
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
Authors: Harris Majeed; Hong Zhu; Sarah A Williams; Heidi A Hamann; Vijaya Subbu Natchimuthu; Jessica Lee; Noel O Santini; Travis Browning; Tanushree Prasad; Joyce O Adesina; Minh Do; David Balis; Juana Gamarra de Willams; Ellen Kitchell; David H Johnson; Simon J Craddock Lee; David E Gerber Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.840
Authors: David E Gerber; Heidi A Hamann; Claudia Chavez; Olivia Dorsey; Noel O Santini; Travis Browning; Cristhiaan D Ochoa; Joyce Adesina; Vijaya Subbu Natchimuthu; Eric Steen; Hong Zhu; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Samantha L Quaife; Mamta Ruparel; Jennifer L Dickson; Rebecca J Beeken; Andy McEwen; David R Baldwin; Angshu Bhowmik; Neal Navani; Karen Sennett; Stephen W Duffy; Jane Wardle; Jo Waller; Samuel M Janes Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Giulia Veronesi; David R Baldwin; Claudia I Henschke; Simone Ghislandi; Sergio Iavicoli; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J De Koning; Joseph Shemesh; John K Field; Javier J Zulueta; Denis Horgan; Lucia Fiestas Navarrete; Maurizio Valentino Infante; Pierluigi Novellis; Rachael L Murray; Nir Peled; Cristiano Rampinelli; Gaetano Rocco; Witold Rzyman; Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Martin C Tammemagi; Luca Bertolaccini; Natthaya Triphuridet; Rowena Yip; Alexia Rossi; Suresh Senan; Giuseppe Ferrante; Kate Brain; Carlijn van der Aalst; Lorenzo Bonomo; Dario Consonni; Jan P Van Meerbeeck; Patrick Maisonneuve; Silvia Novello; Anand Devaraj; Zaigham Saghir; Giuseppe Pelosi Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 6.639