Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the largest contributor to mortality from cancer. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) rather than with chest radiography reduced mortality from lung cancer. We describe the screening, diagnosis, and limited treatment results from the initial round of screening in the NLST to inform and improve lung-cancer-screening programs. METHODS: At 33 U.S. centers, from August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled asymptomatic participants, 55 to 74 years of age, with a history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking. The participants were randomly assigned to undergo annual screening, with the use of either low-dose CT or chest radiography, for 3 years. Nodules or other suspicious findings were classified as positive results. This article reports findings from the initial screening examination. RESULTS: A total of 53,439 eligible participants were randomly assigned to a study group (26,715 to low-dose CT and 26,724 to chest radiography); 26,309 participants (98.5%) and 26,035 (97.4%), respectively, underwent screening. A total of 7191 participants (27.3%) in the low-dose CT group and 2387 (9.2%) in the radiography group had a positive screening result; in the respective groups, 6369 participants (90.4%) and 2176 (92.7%) had at least one follow-up diagnostic procedure, including imaging in 5717 (81.1%) and 2010 (85.6%) and surgery in 297 (4.2%) and 121 (5.2%). Lung cancer was diagnosed in 292 participants (1.1%) in the low-dose CT group versus 190 (0.7%) in the radiography group (stage 1 in 158 vs. 70 participants and stage IIB to IV in 120 vs. 112). Sensitivity and specificity were 93.8% and 73.4% for low-dose CT and 73.5% and 91.3% for chest radiography, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NLST initial screening results are consistent with the existing literature on screening by means of low-dose CT and chest radiography, suggesting that a reduction in mortality from lung cancer is achievable at U.S. screening centers that have staff experienced in chest CT. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial was conducted to determine whether three annual screenings (rounds T0, T1, and T2) with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT), as compared with chest radiography, could reduce mortality from lung cancer. We present detailed findings from the first two incidence screenings (rounds T1 and T2). METHODS: We evaluated the rate of adherence of the participants to the screening protocol, the results of screening and downstream diagnostic tests, features of the lung-cancer cases, and first-line treatments, and we estimated the performance characteristics of both screening methods. RESULTS: At the T1 and T2 rounds, positive screening results were observed in 27.9% and 16.8% of participants in the low-dose CT group and in 6.2% and 5.0% of participants in the radiography group, respectively. In the low-dose CT group, the sensitivity was 94.4%, the specificity was 72.6%, the positive predictive value was 2.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.9% at T1; at T2, the positive predictive value increased to 5.2%. In the radiography group, the sensitivity was 59.6%, the specificity was 94.1%, the positive predictive value was 4.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.8% at T1; both the sensitivity and the positive predictive value increased at T2. Among lung cancers of known stage, 87 (47.5%) were stage IA and 57 (31.1%) were stage III or IV in the low-dose CT group at T1; in the radiography group, 31 (23.5%) were stage IA and 78 (59.1%) were stage III or IV at T1. These differences in stage distribution between groups persisted at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose CT was more sensitive in detecting early-stage lung cancers, but its measured positive predictive value was lower than that of radiography. As compared with radiography, the two annual incidence screenings with low-dose CT resulted in a decrease in the number of advanced-stage cancers diagnosed and an increase in the number of early-stage lung cancers diagnosed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Did death certificates and a death review process agree on lung cancer cause of death in the National Lung Screening Trial?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Randomized controlled trials frequently use death review committees to assign a cause of death rather than relying on cause of death information from death certificates. The National Lung Screening Trial, a randomized controlled trial of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography versus chest X-ray for heavy and/or long-term smokers ages 55-74 years at enrollment, used a committee blinded to arm assignment for a subset of deaths to determine whether cause of death was due to lung cancer. METHODS: Deaths were selected for review using a pre-determined computerized algorithm. The algorithm, which considered cancers diagnosed during the trial, causes and significant conditions listed on the death certificate, and the underlying cause of death derived from death certificate information by trained nosologists, selected deaths that were most likely to represent a death due to lung cancer (either directly or indirectly) and deaths that might have been erroneously assigned lung cancer as the cause of death. The algorithm also selected deaths that might be due to adverse events of diagnostic evaluation for lung cancer. Using the review cause of death as the gold standard and lung cancer cause of death as the outcome of interest (dichotomized as lung cancer versus not lung cancer), we calculated performance measures of the death certificate cause of death. We also recalculated the trial primary endpoint using the death certificate cause of death. RESULTS: In all, 1642 deaths were reviewed and assigned a cause of death (42% of the 3877 National Lung Screening Trial deaths). Sensitivity of death certificate cause of death was 91%; specificity, 97%; positive predictive value, 98%; and negative predictive value, 89%. About 40% of the deaths reclassified to lung cancer cause of death had a death certificate cause of death of a neoplasm other than lung. Using the death certificate cause of death, the lung cancer mortality reduction was 18% (95% confidence interval: 4.2-25.0), as compared with the published finding of 20% (95% confidence interval: 6.7-26.7). CONCLUSION: Death review may not be necessary for primary-outcome analyses in lung cancer screening trials. If deemed necessary, researchers should strive to streamline the death review process as much as possible.

Occurrence of Distal Colorectal Neoplasia Among Whites and Blacks Following Negative Flexible Sigmoidoscopy: An Analysis of PLCO Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the higher rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) among non-Hispanic blacks (blacks) is due to lower rates of CRC screening or greater biologic risk. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether blacks are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (whites) to develop distal colon neoplasia (adenoma and/or cancer) after negative flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG). DESIGN: We analyzed data of participants with negative FSGs at baseline in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial who underwent repeat FSGs 3 or 5 years later. Subjects with polyps or masses were referred to their physicians for diagnostic colonoscopy. We collected and reviewed the records of diagnostic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Our analytic cohort consisted of 21,550 whites and 975 blacks. MAIN MEASURES: We did a comparison by race (whites vs. blacks) in the findings of polyps or masses at repeat FSG, the follow-up of abnormal test results and the detection of colorectal neoplasia at diagnostic colonoscopy. KEY RESULTS: At the follow-up FSG examination, 304 blacks (31.2 %) and 4183 whites (19.4 %) had abnormal FSG, [adjusted relative risk (RR) = 1.00; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.90-1.10]. However, blacks were less likely to undergo diagnostic colonoscopy (76.6 % vs. 83.1 %; RR = 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.84-0.96). Among all included patients, blacks had similar risk of any distal adenoma (RR = 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.65-1.14) and distal advanced adenoma (RR = 1.01; 95 % CI, 0.60-1.68). Similar results were obtained when we restricted our analysis to compliant subjects who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy (RR = 1.01; 95 % CI, 0.80-1.29) for any distal adenoma and (RR = 1.18; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.92) for distal advanced adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any differences between blacks and whites in the risk of distal colorectal adenoma 3-5 years after negative FSG. However, follow-up evaluations were lower among blacks.

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

OBJECTIVE: To obtain information from participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial regarding their perception of the retention materials employed by the screening centers. Also, to determine the viability of using email or the internet as a data collection tool with an older population. DESIGN: Three of ten PLCO screening centers queried participants towards the end of the study (2010) as to their opinions of the various retention materials and whether they would have been willing to use electronic communication for study activities, had the option been available. SETTING: The questionnaires were administered by mail, and responses were returned to the originating screening center. PARTICIPANTS: The participants in this study consisted of all the active participants at three PLCO screening centers: the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, the University of Utah, and Henry Ford Health System. METHODS: A short, self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all active participants at three PLCO centers (n=41,482). This was a one-time mailing with no follow-up, as the responses were designed to be anonymous in order to obtain the most honest responses. RESULTS: The response rate was 62%. Of respondents, 97% reported their PLCO experience was good or excellent. Nearly 50% of respondents indicated that receipt of an annual newsletter made them more likely to participate; newsletter features they reported as most important were those that conveyed information on cancer, study findings, and how their data were being used. Results did not support study coordinators' suppositions that receipt of a token gift or birthday card by participants was important for retention. Fewer than 30% of respondents indicated that they would have been unwilling to use a secure website to complete study forms. CONCLUSION: These data indicate the importance of querying participants rather than relying on impressions of study staff, and also indicate that the internet will be a viable means of data collection in future prevention studies that include older Americans.

Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

BACKGROUND: The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screening, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer. METHODS: From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or single-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009. RESULTS: The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screening tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P=0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Non-compliance with the initial screening exam visit in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Identify predictors of non-compliance with first round screening exams in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. METHOD: The PLCO was conducted from 1993 to 2011 at 10 US institutions. A total of 154,897 healthy men and women ages 55-74 years were randomized. Intervention arm participants were invited to receive gender-appropriate screening exams for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Using intervention-arm data (73,036 participants), non-compliance percentages for 13 covariates were calculated, as were unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals. Covariates included demographic factors as well as factors specific to PLCO (e.g., method of consent, distance from screening center). RESULTS: The rate of non-compliance was 11% overall but varied by screening center. Significant associations were observed for most covariates but indicated modest increases or decreases in odds. An exception was the use of a two-step consent process (consented intervention arm participants for exams after randomization) relative to a one-step process (consented all participants prior to randomization) (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.0-2.5). Non-compliance percentages increased with further distance from screening centers, but ORs were not significantly different from 1. CONCLUSIONS: Many factors modestly influenced compliance. Consent process was the strongest predictor of compliance.

Factors associated with the risk of adenoma recurrence in distal and proximal colon.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colonoscopy may be less effective in preventing cancer in the proximal colon. We evaluated whether risk factors for adenoma recurrence exhibit differential effect on adenoma recurrence by colon subsite. METHODS: We examined the association of age, sex, body mass index, smoking status and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on proximal and distal adenoma recurrence among 1,864 participants in the Polyp Prevention Trial. We used multinomial logistic regression models to calculate the relative risk ratios (RRR) and 95% CI. RESULTS: 733 (39.3%) participants had adenoma recurrence (228 distal only, 369 proximal only and 136 synchronous proximal and distal adenoma). When compared to participants without adenoma recurrence, no factor was associated with an increased risk of distal only adenoma recurrence. Age 65-69 years (RRR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.00-2.16), age ≥70 years (RRR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.57-3.20), and male sex (RRR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.32-2.27) were positively associated with proximal only adenoma recurrence. NSAIDs use was associated with a reduced risk of adenoma recurrence by similar magnitude in distal (RRR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.58-1.07) and proximal colon (RRR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any modifiable risk factor that differentially increases proximal as compared to distal adenoma recurrence to be clinically useful for targeted intervention.

New models for large prospective studies: is there a better way?

Large prospective cohort studies are critical for identifying etiologic factors for disease, but they require substantial long-term research investment. Such studies can be conducted as multisite consortia of academic medical centers, combinations of smaller ongoing studies, or a single large site such as a dominant regional health-care provider. Still another strategy relies upon centralized conduct of most or all aspects, recruiting through multiple temporary assessment centers. This is the approach used by a large-scale national resource in the United Kingdom known as the "UK Biobank," which completed recruitment/examination of 503,000 participants between 2007 and 2010 within budget and ahead of schedule. A key lesson from UK Biobank and similar studies is that large studies are not simply small studies made large but, rather, require fundamentally different approaches in which "process" expertise is as important as scientific rigor. Embedding recruitment in a structure that facilitates outcome determination, utilizing comprehensive and flexible information technology, automating biospecimen processing, ensuring broad consent, and establishing essentially autonomous leadership with appropriate oversight are all critical to success. Whether and how these approaches may be transportable to the United States remain to be explored, but their success in studies such as UK Biobank makes a compelling case for such explorations to begin.

Lung cancer screening practices of primary care physicians: results from a national survey.

PURPOSE: Although current practice guidelines do not recommend screening asymptomatic patients for lung cancer, physicians may still order lung cancer screening tests. No recent national survey of health care professionals has focused on lung cancer screening. In this study, we examined the lung cancer screening practices of US primary care physicians and characteristics of those who order lung cancer screening tests. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative survey of practicing primary care physicians in 2006-2007. Mailed questionnaires assessed the physicians' knowledge of lung cancer screening guidelines, beliefs about the effectiveness of screening tests, and ordering of screening chest radiograph, low-dose spiral computed tomography, or sputum cytology in the past 12 months. Clinical vignettes were used to assess the physicians' intentions to screen asymptomatic 50-year-old patients with varying smoking histories for lung cancer. RESULTS: A total of 962 family physicians, general practitioners, and general internists completed questionnaires (cooperation rate = 76.8%). Overall, 38% had ordered no lung cancer screening tests; 55% had ordered chest radiograph, 22% low-dose spiral computed tomography, and less than 5% sputum cytology. In multivariate modeling, physicians were more likely to have ordered lung cancer screening tests if they believed that expert groups recommend lung cancer screening or that screening tests are effective; if they would recommend screening for asymptomatic patients, including patients without substantial smoking exposure; and if their patients had asked them about screening. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians in the United States frequently order lung cancer screening tests for asymptomatic patients, even though expert groups do not recommend it. Primary care physicians and patients need more information about lung cancer screening's evidence base, guidelines, potential harms, and costs to avert inappropriate ordering.

The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) is a randomized multicenter study comparing low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) with chest radiography in the screening of older current and former heavy smokers for early detection of lung cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Five-year survival rates approach 70% with surgical resection of stage IA disease; however, more than 75% of individuals have incurable locally advanced or metastatic disease, the latter having a 5-year survival of less than 5%. It is plausible that treatment should be more effective and the likelihood of death decreased if asymptomatic lung cancer is detected through screening early enough in its preclinical phase. For these reasons, there is intense interest and intuitive appeal in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. The use of survival as the determinant of screening effectiveness is, however, confounded by the well-described biases of lead time, length, and overdiagnosis. Despite previous attempts, no test has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, an endpoint that circumvents screening biases and provides a definitive measure of benefit when assessed in a randomized controlled trial that enables comparison of mortality rates between screened individuals and a control group that does not undergo the screening intervention of interest. The NLST is such a trial. The rationale for and design of the NLST are presented.

Likelihood of missed and recurrent adenomas in the proximal versus the distal colon.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy may be less efficacious in reducing colorectal cancer mortality in the proximal compared with the distal colon. A greater likelihood for missed and recurrent adenomas in the proximal colon may contribute to this phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a proximal adenoma is associated with the risk and location of missed and recurrent adenomas. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Polyp Prevention Trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1864 patients with an adenoma at baseline underwent a follow-up colonoscopy 4 years later (adenoma recurrence). Of these, 1731 underwent a clearing colonoscopy 1 year after the baseline examination (missed adenoma). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Association of baseline adenoma location with the risk and location of adenomas found at colonoscopy performed 1 year and 4 years later. RESULTS: At the year 1 colonoscopy, 598 patients (34.6%) had an adenoma (missed adenoma). Compared with those with a distal-only adenoma at baseline, patients with a proximal-only adenoma at baseline were more likely to have any missed adenomas (relative risk [RR] 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09-1.49) and a proximal-only missed adenoma (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.49-2.80). At the year 4 colonoscopy, 733 patients (39.3%) had adenoma recurrence. Patients with a baseline proximal-only adenoma were more likely to have any adenoma recurrence (RR 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.31) and a proximal-only adenoma recurrence (RR 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.02). Sensitivity analyses involving missed adenomas did not materially affect the risk or location of recurrent adenomas at year 4 colonoscopy. LIMITATION: Lesions may still be missed on repeated colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: Missed and recurrent adenomas are more likely to be in the proximal colon.

Cumulative incidence of false-positive test results in lung cancer screening: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer promotion of lung cancer screening has increased, especially low-dose computed tomography (CT). However, screening exposes healthy persons to potential harms, and cumulative false-positive rates for low-dose CT have never been formally reported. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the cumulative risk that a person who participated in a 1- or 2-year lung cancer screening examination would receive at least 1 false-positive result, as well as rates of unnecessary diagnostic procedures. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial of low-dose CT versus chest radiography. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00006382) SETTING: Feasibility study for the ongoing National Lung Screening Trial. PATIENTS: Current or former smokers, aged 55 to 74 years, with a smoking history of 30 pack-years or more and no history of lung cancer (n = 3190). INTERVENTION: Random assignment to low-dose CT or chest radiography with baseline and 1 repeated annual screening; 1-year follow-up after the final screening. Randomization was centralized and stratified by age, sex, and study center. MEASUREMENTS: False-positive screenings, defined as a positive screening with a completed negative work-up or 12 months or more of follow-up with no lung cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: By using a Kaplan-Meier analysis, a person's cumulative probability of 1 or more false-positive low-dose CT examinations was 21% (95% CI, 19% to 23%) after 1 screening and 33% (CI, 31% to 35%) after 2. The rates for chest radiography were 9% (CI, 8% to 11%) and 15% (CI, 13% to 16%), respectively. A total of 7% of participants with a false-positive low-dose CT examination and 4% with a false-positive chest radiography had a resulting invasive procedure. LIMITATIONS: Screening was limited to 2 rounds. Follow-up after the second screening was limited to 12 months. The false-negative rate is probably an underestimate. CONCLUSION: Risks for false-positive results on lung cancer screening tests are substantial after only 2 annual examinations, particularly for low-dose CT. Further study of resulting economic, psychosocial, and physical burdens of these methods is warranted. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Do competing causes of mortality contribute to overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening?

Overdiagnosed cancers are those that are screen-detected but never would have been symptomatic during patients' lifetimes. Indolent cancers are overdiagnosed cancers. Non-indolent cancers can be overdiagnosed when patients die of causes other than the screen-detected cancer and would have, in the absence of screening, been asymptomatic and undiagnosed at the time of death. This is termed competing cause of mortality (CCM) overdiagnosis. Deaths soon after screen detection may represent CCM overdiagnosis. We examined time from screen-detection to death among the 35 participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) low-dose computed tomography arm with screen-detected lung cancer and died of non-lung-cancer causes. Seven participants died within 6 months, and 20 died more than 24 months after diagnosis. Deaths due to non-lung cancer causes soon after screen detection were uncommon, arguing against widespread CCM overdiagnosis in the NLST. However, CCM overdiagnosis is likely more frequent in community-based screening given the higher prevalence of comorbidities.

Atrophic gastritis and the risk of incident colorectal cancer.

UNLABELLED: Previous studies evaluating whether risk factors for gastric cancer are also associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) have shown inconsistent results. We prospectively examined the association of atrophic gastritis, a pre-malignant condition for gastric cancer and long-term sequelae common to many exposure factors, and the risk of incident CRC. METHODS: A total of 20,928 Finnish male smokers, aged 50-69, who were participants in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (ATBC) had serum pepsinogen I (SPGI) levels measured. Participants with low SPGI levels (< 25 microg/l; n = 1,665) were invited for gastroscopy. Of these, 1,059 (63.6%) participants underwent gastroscopy and atrophic gastritis was histologically confirmed in 1,006 (95.0%) participants. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate the risk of incident CRC. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (236,258 person-years), 425 incident CRCs were diagnosed. The incidence rates were 1.82, 1.48, and 1.82 per 1,000 person-years of follow-up for participants with normal SPGI (> or =25 microg/l), low SPGI, and histologically confirmed atrophic gastritis, respectively. Compared to subjects with normal SPGI, there was no increased risk of CRC among subjects with low SPGI (Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.47-1.05) and among those with histologically confirmed atrophic gastritis (Adjusted HR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.55-1.34). CONCLUSION: Atrophic gastritis is not associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer among male smokers.

Does the source of death information affect cancer screening efficacy results? A study of the use of mortality review versus death certificates in four randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Often in randomized controlled trials of cancer screening, cause of death is determined by a mortality review committee. However, little is known regarding how findings from mortality review compare to those from death certificates alone. PURPOSE: To examine the results of four different U. S. trials of cancer screening when death certificate data only were used, as compared to results using all available mortality review information. METHODS: Trials included were the Health Insurance Plan of New York breast screening trial (HIP), the Minnesota trial of fecal occult blood testing, and the Johns Hopkins and Mayo Lung Projects, which each examined chest x-ray and sputum cytology. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Cohen's kappa for death certificates were calculated for all arms of all trials. Separate intention-to-screen analyses were conducted for each trial using cause of death information from either death certificates alone or full mortality review data. RESULTS: Generally there was excellent agreement between the death certificates and the mortality review committee as to the underlying cause of death (kappa >0.85 in all cases); death certificate agreement was similar between arms in all trials. Modest changes in the screening effectiveness estimates were observed when mortality review information was utilized, ranging from a 9% decrease to a 2% increase in the calculated mortality rate ratios. However, in one instance (HIP) a statistically significant benefit of screening was observed when mortality review committee data were used (rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62- 0.95) but not when death certificate data were used (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65-1.03). LIMITATIONS: Although considered to be the gold standard, even carefully conducted mortality review may result in errors in cause of death assignment. CONCLUSIONS: For each trial, results were similar regardless of the source of cause of death information.

The impact of a primetime cancer storyline: from individual knowledge and behavioral intentions to policy-level changes.

We assessed the educational impact of a primetime network TV storyline that addressed cancer patient navigators. An online survey was administered after the episode aired. Exposed respondents saw the episode (n = 336); unexposed respondents did not (n = 211). Exposed respondents were more likely to report they would recommend a patient navigator (61% vs. 48%, p = 0.01). Clips of the episode were shown to raise awareness of patient navigators in a Congressional Committee meeting before the Patient Navigator Act was signed into law (2005). Entertainment education can have a positive impact on cancer knowledge and can contribute to policy-level decisions.

Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Across Diverse Healthcare Systems: A Process Model from the Lung PROSPR Consortium.

Numerous organizations, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force, recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT for high risk adults who meet specific criteria. Despite recommendations and national coverage for screening eligible adults through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, LCS uptake in the United States remains low (<4%). In recognition of the need to improve and understand LCS across the population, as part of the larger Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening PRocess (PROSPR) consortium, the NCI (Bethesda, MD) funded the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium consisting of five diverse healthcare systems in Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Using various methods and data sources, the center aims to examine utilization and outcomes of LCS across diverse populations, and assess how variations in the implementation of LCS programs shape outcomes across the screening process. This commentary presents the PROSPR LCS process model, which outlines the interrelated steps needed to complete the screening process from risk assessment to treatment. In addition to guiding planned projects within the Lung PROSPR Research Consortium, this model provides insights on the complex steps needed to implement, evaluate, and improve LCS outcomes in community practice.

Utilization and yield of surveillance colonoscopy in the continued follow-up study of the polyp prevention trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prospective information on the use and yield of surveillance colonoscopy is limited. We examined the use and yield of surveillance colonoscopy among participants in the Polyp Prevention Trial (PPT) after the 4-year dietary intervention trial ended. METHODS: We followed a cohort of 1297 participants. We calculated the cumulative probability of posttrial colonoscopy and investigated the yield and predictive factors for adenoma and advanced adenoma recurrence over a mean time of 5.9 years. RESULTS: Seven-hundred seventy-four subjects (59.7%) had a repeat colonoscopy. Among 431 subjects with low-risk adenomas (1-2 nonadvanced adenomas) at baseline and no adenoma recurrence at the end of the PPT (lowest-risk category), 30.3% underwent a repeat colonoscopy within 4 years. Among 55 subjects who had high-risk adenomas (advanced adenoma and/or > or =3 nonadvanced adenomas) at baseline and again at the final PPT colonoscopy (highest-risk category), 41.3% had a colonoscopy within 3 years and 63.5% had an examination within 5 years. The cumulative yield of advanced adenoma through 6 years was 3.6% for the lowest-risk category, 38.9% for the highest-risk category, and ranged from 6.6% to 13.8% for intermediate-risk categories. An advanced adenoma at the final PPT colonoscopy was associated significantly with an advanced adenoma recurrence during surveillance (hazard ratio, 6.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-15.4). CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance colonoscopy was overused for low-risk subjects and underused for high-risk subjects. Advanced adenoma yield corresponded with the adenoma risk category. Resource consumption can be better managed by aligning use with the risk of adenoma recurrence.

Hyperplastic polyps and the risk of adenoma recurrence in the polyp prevention trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent studies have suggested that some hyperplastic polyps may be associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Prospective information on the risk of adenoma recurrence associated with hyperplastic polyps is limited. We sought to investigate whether the coexistence of hyperplastic polyps with adenomas increases the risk of adenoma recurrence. METHODS: We used unconditional logistic regression models to examine the association between baseline hyperplastic polyps and subsequent adenoma recurrence during a 3-year follow-up evaluation, among 1637 participants in the Polyp Prevention Trial. RESULTS: A total of 437 participants (26.7%) had hyperplastic polyps coexisting with adenomas at baseline. Of these, 132 (30.2%) had at least one hyperplastic polyp in the proximal colon, whereas 305 (69.8%) had only distal hyperplastic polyps. When compared with subjects without any hyperplastic polyps at baseline, there was no statistically significant association between the presence of baseline hyperplastic polyps and recurrence of any adenoma (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.51) or advanced adenoma (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.78-2.03). Also, there was no association between hyperplastic polyp location and adenoma recurrence (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.69-1.48) for any proximal hyperplastic polyp (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.96-1.65) and for distal hyperplastic polyps. CONCLUSIONS: The coexistence of hyperplastic polyps with adenomas, irrespective of location, does not confer an increased risk of adenoma recurrence beyond that of adenomas alone within 3 years of follow-up evaluation. Prospective long-term studies on adenoma recurrence risk associated with hyperplastic polyps in screening populations are needed.