The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial Pathology Tissue Resource.

BACKGROUND: Pathology tissue specimens with associated epidemiologic and clinical data are valuable for cancer research. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial undertook a large-scale effort to create a public resource of pathology tissues from PLCO participants who developed a cancer during the trial. METHODS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks were obtained from pathology laboratories on a loan basis for central processing of tissue microarrays, with additional free-standing tissue cores collected for nucleic acid extraction. RESULTS: Pathology tissue specimens were obtained for prostate cancer (n = 1,052), lung cancer (n = 434), colorectal cancer (n = 675) and adenoma (n = 658), ovarian cancer and borderline tumors (n = 212), breast cancer (n = 870), and bladder cancer (n = 204). The process of creating this resource was complex, involving multidisciplinary teams with expertise in pathology, epidemiology, information technology, project management, and specialized laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: Creating the PLCO tissue resource required a multistep process, including obtaining medical records and contacting pathology departments where pathology materials were stored after obtaining necessary patient consent and authorization. The potential to link tissue biomarkers to prospectively collected epidemiologic information, screening and clinical data, and matched blood or buccal samples offers valuable opportunities to study etiologic heterogeneity, mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and biomarkers for early detection and prognosis. IMPACT: The methods and protocols developed for this effort, and the detailed description of this resource provided here, will be useful for those seeking to use PLCO pathology tissue specimens for their research and may also inform future tissue collection efforts in other settings. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(12); 1635-42. ©2016 AACR.

Managing Multi-Center Recruitment in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

There were significant recruitment challenges specific to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Large numbers of participants were to be randomized from ten catchment areas nationwide within time and budgetary constraints. The eligible population was elderly and had to meet health and behavioral thresholds. Informed consent was required to participate and be randomized to screening for three cancers at periodic clinic visits or to a usual care arm that included no clinical visits. Consenting required special efforts to fully explain the trial and its potential scientific benefit to future patients with potentially no benefits but possible harms to PLCO participants. Participation would include continued follow-up for at least 13 years after randomization. Strong collaborative investments were required by the NCI and screening centers (SCs) to assure timely recruitment and appropriate racial participation. A trial-wide pilot phase tested recruitment and protocol follow through at SCs and produced a vanguard population of 11,406 participants. NCI announced the trial nationally in advance of the pilot and followed with an even more intense collaborative role with SCs for the main phase to facilitate trial-wide efficient and timely recruitment. Special efforts to enhance recruitment in the main phase included centralized and local monitoring of progress, cross-linking SCs to share experiences in problem solving, centralized training, substantial additional funding dedicated to recruitment and retention, including specialized programs for minority recruitment, obtaining national endorsement by the American Cancer Society, launching satellite recruitment and screening centers, including minority focused satellites, and adding a new SC dedicated to minority recruitment.

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.

Building Successful Relationships in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

Biomedical research cannot succeed without funding, knowledgeable staff, and appropriate infrastructure. There are however equally important but intangible factors that are rarely considered in planning large multidisciplinary endeavors or evaluating their success. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial required extensive collaborations between individuals from many fields, including clinicians, clinical trialists, and administrators; it also addressed questions across the spectrum of cancer prevention and control. In this manuscript, we examine the experiences and opinions of trial staff regarding the building of successful relationships in PLCO. We summarize, in narrative form, data collected using open-ended questionnaires that were administered to the National Cancer Institute project officers, coordinating center staff, screening center principal investigators, and screening center coordinators in 2015, about 3 years after publication of the final primary trial manuscript. Trust, respect, listening to others, and in-person interaction were frequently mentioned as crucial to building successful relationships.

Recruitment methods employed in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) is a US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether certain screening tests reduce mortality from prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. To obtain adequate statistical power, it was necessary to enroll over 150,000 healthy volunteers. Recruitment began in 1993 and ended in 2001. PURPOSE: Our goal is to evaluate the success of recruitment methods employed by the 10 PLCO screening centers. We also provide estimates of recruitment yield and cost for our most successful strategy, direct mail. METHODS: Each screening center selected its own methods of recruitment. Methods changed throughout the recruitment period as needed. For this manuscript, representatives from each screening center provided information on methods utilized and their success. RESULTS: In the United States between 1993 and 2001, ten screening centers enrolled 154,934 study participants. Based on participant self-report, an estimated 95% of individuals were recruited by direct mail. Overall, enrollment yield for direct mail was 1.0%. Individual center enrollment yield ranged from 0.7% to 3.8%. Cost per enrolled participant was $9.64-35.38 for direct mail, excluding personnel costs. LIMITATIONS: Numeric data on recruitment processes were not kept consistently at individual screening centers. Numeric data in this manuscript are based on the experiences of 5 of the 10 centers. CONCLUSIONS: Direct mail, using rosters of names and addresses from profit and not-for-profit (including government) organizations, was the most successful and most often used recruitment method. Other recruitment strategies, such as community outreach and use of mass media, can be an important adjunct to direct mail in recruiting minority populations.