Thyroid Incidentalomas in Association With Low-Dose Computed Tomography in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Advances in cancer screening methods have opened avenues for incidental findings and cancer overdiagnosis. We performed a secondary analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial (enrollment from 2002-2004), a randomized controlled trial comparing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT; n = 26,722) with chest radiography (CXR; n = 26,732) for lung cancer detection, to examine incidental findings related to thyroid cancer (ThCa). Three screening rounds were included, and median follow-up was 6.6 years for LDCT and 6.5 years for CXR. Radiologists reported lung and non-lung-related abnormalities. In the LDCT arm, 5.7%, 4.7%, and 4.5% of participants had abnormalities above the diaphragm (AADs) detected at baseline, year 1, and year 2, respectively, compared with 2.3%, 1.5%, and 1.3% in the CXR arm. In the LDCT arm, 205 AADs (7.0%) were thyroid-related. Overall, 60 ThCas were reported, 35 in the LDCT arm and 25 in the CXR arm (P = 0.2). In the LDCT arm, participants with a prior AAD had a 7.8-fold increased risk (95% confidence interval: 4.0, 15.1) of ThCa compared with those who did not have an AAD. Early and persistent excess of ThCas diagnosed earlier in the LDCT arm suggests overdiagnosis. The use of sensitive screening modalities for early detection of lung cancer might result in the discovery of thyroid incidentalomas.

Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The goal of screening mammography is to detect small malignant tumors before they grow large enough to cause symptoms. Effective screening should therefore lead to the detection of a greater number of small tumors, followed by fewer large tumors over time. METHODS: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, 1975 through 2012, to calculate the tumor-size distribution and size-specific incidence of breast cancer among women 40 years of age or older. We then calculated the size-specific cancer case fatality rate for two time periods: a baseline period before the implementation of widespread screening mammography (1975 through 1979) and a period encompassing the most recent years for which 10 years of follow-up data were available (2000 through 2002). RESULTS: After the advent of screening mammography, the proportion of detected breast tumors that were small (invasive tumors measuring <2 cm or in situ carcinomas) increased from 36% to 68%; the proportion of detected tumors that were large (invasive tumors measuring ≥2 cm) decreased from 64% to 32%. However, this trend was less the result of a substantial decrease in the incidence of large tumors (with 30 fewer cases of cancer observed per 100,000 women in the period after the advent of screening than in the period before screening) and more the result of a substantial increase in the detection of small tumors (with 162 more cases of cancer observed per 100,000 women). Assuming that the underlying disease burden was stable, only 30 of the 162 additional small tumors per 100,000 women that were diagnosed were expected to progress to become large, which implied that the remaining 132 cases of cancer per 100,000 women were overdiagnosed (i.e., cases of cancer were detected on screening that never would have led to clinical symptoms). The potential of screening to lower breast cancer mortality is reflected in the declining incidence of larger tumors. However, with respect to only these large tumors, the decline in the size-specific case fatality rate suggests that improved treatment was responsible for at least two thirds of the reduction in breast cancer mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although the rate of detection of large tumors fell after the introduction of screening mammography, the more favorable size distribution was primarily the result of the additional detection of small tumors. Women were more likely to have breast cancer that was overdiagnosed than to have earlier detection of a tumor that was destined to become large. The reduction in breast cancer mortality after the implementation of screening mammography was predominantly the result of improved systemic therapy.

Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median follow-up of 15 years.

BACKGROUND: Two large-scale prostate cancer screening trials using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have given conflicting results in terms of the efficacy of such screening. One of those trials, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, previously reported outcomes with 13 years of follow-up. This study presents updated findings from the PLCO trial. METHODS: The PLCO trial randomized subjects from 1993 to 2001 to an intervention or control arm. Intervention-arm men received annual PSA tests for 6 years and digital rectal examinations for 4 years. This study used a linkage with the National Death Index to extend mortality follow-up to a maximum of 19 years after randomization. RESULTS: Men were randomized to the intervention arm (n = 38,340) or the control arm (n = 38,343). The median follow-up time was 14.8 years (25th/75th, 12.7/16.5 years) in the intervention arm and 14.7 years (25th/75th, 12.6/16.4 years) in the control arm. There were 255 deaths from prostate cancer in the intervention arm and 244 deaths from prostate cancer in the control arm; this meant a rate ratio (RR) of 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.24). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.977 (95% CI, 0.950-1.004). It was estimated that 86% of the men in the control arm and 99% of the men in the intervention arm received any PSA testing during the trial, and the estimated yearly screening-phase PSA testing rates were 46% and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up of the PLCO trial over a median of 15 years continues to indicate no reduction in prostate cancer mortality for the intervention arm versus the control arm. Because of the high rate of control-arm PSA testing, this finding can be viewed as showing no benefit of organized screening versus opportunistic screening. Cancer 2017;123:592-599. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Lung cancer incidence and mortality in National Lung Screening Trial participants who underwent low-dose CT prevalence screening: a retrospective cohort analysis of a randomised, multicentre, diagnostic screening trial.

BACKGROUND: Annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer has been recommended for high-risk individuals, but the necessity of yearly low-dose CT in all eligible individuals is uncertain. This study examined rates of lung cancer in National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants who had a negative prevalence (initial) low-dose CT screen to explore whether less frequent screening could be justified in some lower-risk subpopulations. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort analysis of data from the NLST, a randomised, multicentre screening trial comparing three annual low-dose CT assessments with three annual chest radiographs for the early detection of lung cancer in high-risk, eligible individuals (aged 55-74 years with at least a 30 pack-year history of cigarette smoking, and, if a former smoker, had quit within the past 15 years), recruited from US medical centres between Aug 5, 2002, and April 26, 2004. Participants were followed up for up to 5 years after their last annual screen. For the purposes of this analysis, our cohort consisted of all NLST participants who had received a low-dose CT prevalence (T0) screen. We determined the frequency, stage, histology, study year of diagnosis, and incidence of lung cancer, as well as overall and lung cancer-specific mortality, and whether lung cancers were detected as a result of screening or within 1 year of a negative screen. We also estimated the effect on mortality if the first annual (T1) screen in participants with a negative T0 screen had not been done. The NLST is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00047385. FINDINGS: Our cohort consisted of 26 231 participants assigned to the low-dose CT screening group who had undergone their T0 screen. The 19 066 participants with a negative T0 screen had a lower incidence of lung cancer than did all 26 231 T0-screened participants (371·88 [95% CI 337·97-408·26] per 100 000 person-years vs 661·23 [622·07-702·21]) and had lower lung cancer-related mortality (185·82 [95% CI 162·17-211·93] per 100 000 person-years vs 277·20 [252·28-303·90]). The yield of lung cancer at the T1 screen among participants with a negative T0 screen was 0·34% (62 screen-detected cancers out of 18 121 screened participants), compared with a yield at the T0 screen among all T0-screened participants of 1·0% (267 of 26 231). We estimated that if the T1 screen had not been done in the T0 negative group, at most, an additional 28 participants in the T0 negative group would have died from lung cancer (a rise in mortality from 185·82 [95% CI 162·17-211·93] per 100 000 person-years to 212·14 [186·80-239·96]) over the course of the trial. INTERPRETATION: Participants with a negative low-dose CT prevalence screen had a lower incidence of lung cancer and lung cancer-specific mortality than did all participants who underwent a prevalence screen. Because overly frequent screening has associated harms, increasing the interval between screens in participants with a negative low-dose CT prevalence screen might be warranted. FUNDING: None.

Research Needs for Understanding the Biology of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening.

Many cancers offer an extended window of opportunity for early detection and therapeutic intervention that could lead to a reduction in cause-specific mortality. The pursuit of early detection in screening settings has resulted in decreased incidence and mortality for some cancers (e.g., colon and cervical cancers), and increased incidence with only modest or no effect on cause-specific mortality in others (e.g., breast and prostate). Whereas highly sensitive screening technologies are better at detecting a number of suspected "cancers" that are indolent and likely to remain clinically unimportant in the lifetime of a patient, defined as overdiagnosis, they often miss cancers that are aggressive and tend to present clinically between screenings, known as interval cancers. Unrecognized overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment with its attendant (often long-lasting) side effects, anxiety, and substantial financial harm. Existing methods often cannot differentiate indolent lesions from aggressive ones or understand the dynamics of neoplastic progression. To correctly identify the population that would benefit the most from screening and identify the lesions that would benefit most from treatment, the evolving genomic and molecular profiles of individual cancers during the clinical course of progression or indolence must be investigated, while taking into account an individual's genetic susceptibility, clinical and environmental risk factors, and the tumor microenvironment. Practical challenges lie not only in the lack of access to tissue specimens that are appropriate for the study of natural history, but also in the absence of targeted research strategies. This commentary summarizes the recommendations from a diverse group of scientists with expertise in basic biology, translational research, clinical research, statistics, and epidemiology and public health professionals convened to discuss research directions. J. Cell. Physiol. 231: 1870-1875, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Extended mortality results for ovarian cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median 15years follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial originally reported no mortality benefit of ovarian cancer screening after a median of 12.4years of follow-up. The UKCTOCS screening trial failed to show a statistically significant mortality reduction in the primary analysis but reported an apparent increased mortality benefit in trial years 7-14 compared to 0-7. Here we report an updated analysis of PLCO with extended mortality follow-up. METHODS: Participants were randomized from 1993 to 2001 at ten U.S. centers to an intervention or usual care arm. Intervention arm women were screened for ovarian cancer with annual trans-vaginal ultrasound (TVU) (4years) and CA-125 (6years), with a fixed cutoff at 35U/mL for CA-125. The original follow-up period was for up to 13years (median follow-up 12.4years); in this analysis follow-up for mortality was extended by up to 6years. RESULTS: 39,105 (intervention) and 39,111 (usual care) women were randomized, of which 34,253 and 34,304, respectively, had at least one ovary at baseline. Median follow-up was 14.7years in each arm and maximum follow-up 19.2years in each arm. A total of 187 (intervention) and 176 (usual care) deaths from ovarian cancer were observed, for a risk-ratio of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.87-1.30). Risk-ratios were similar for study years 0-7 (RR=1.04), 7-14 (RR=1.06) and 14+ (RR=1.09). The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.97-1.05). Ovarian cancer specific survival was not significantly different across trial arms (p=0.16). CONCLUSION: Extended follow-up of PLCO indicated no mortality benefit from screening for ovarian cancer with CA-125 and TVU.

Latent class instrumental variables: a clinical and biostatistical perspective.

In some two-arm randomized trials, some participants receive the treatment assigned to the other arm as a result of technical problems, refusal of a treatment invitation, or a choice of treatment in an encouragement design. In some before-and-after studies, the availability of a new treatment changes from one time period to this next. Under assumptions that are often reasonable, the latent class instrumental variable (IV) method estimates the effect of treatment received in the aforementioned scenarios involving all-or-none compliance and all-or-none availability. Key aspects are four initial latent classes (sometimes called principal strata) based on treatment received if in each randomization group or time period, the exclusion restriction assumption (in which randomization group or time period is an instrumental variable), the monotonicity assumption (which drops an implausible latent class from the analysis), and the estimated effect of receiving treatment in one latent class (sometimes called efficacy, the local average treatment effect, or the complier average causal effect). Since its independent formulations in the biostatistics and econometrics literatures, the latent class IV method (which has no well-established name) has gained increasing popularity. We review the latent class IV method from a clinical and biostatistical perspective, focusing on underlying assumptions, methodological extensions, and applications in our fields of obstetrics and cancer research.

Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of endoscopic testing for colorectal-cancer screening are uncertain. We evaluated the effect of screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy on colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 154,900 men and women 55 to 74 years of age either to screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy, with a repeat screening at 3 or 5 years, or to usual care. Cases of colorectal cancer and deaths from the disease were ascertained. RESULTS: Of the 77,445 participants randomly assigned to screening (intervention group), 83.5% underwent baseline flexible sigmoidoscopy and 54.0% were screened at 3 or 5 years. The incidence of colorectal cancer after a median follow-up of 11.9 years was 11.9 cases per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (1012 cases), as compared with 15.2 cases per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (1287 cases), which represents a 21% reduction (relative risk, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.85; P<0.001). Significant reductions were observed in the incidence of both distal colorectal cancer (479 cases in the intervention group vs. 669 cases in the usual-care group; relative risk, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.80; P<0.001) and proximal colorectal cancer (512 cases vs. 595 cases; relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.97; P=0.01). There were 2.9 deaths from colorectal cancer per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (252 deaths), as compared with 3.9 per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (341 deaths), which represents a 26% reduction (relative risk, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.87; P<0.001). Mortality from distal colorectal cancer was reduced by 50% (87 deaths in the intervention group vs. 175 in the usual-care group; relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64; P<0.001); mortality from proximal colorectal cancer was unaffected (143 and 147 deaths, respectively; relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.22; P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a significant decrease in colorectal-cancer incidence (in both the distal and proximal colon) and mortality (distal colon only). (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PLCO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.).

Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes.

BACKGROUND: A surrogate endpoint is an endpoint observed earlier than the true endpoint (a health outcome) that is used to draw conclusions about the effect of treatment on the unobserved true endpoint. A prognostic marker is a marker for predicting the risk of an event given a control treatment; it informs treatment decisions when there is information on anticipated benefits and harms of a new treatment applied to persons at high risk. A predictive marker is a marker for predicting the effect of treatment on outcome in a subgroup of patients or study participants; it provides more rigorous information for treatment selection than a prognostic marker when it is based on estimated treatment effects in a randomized trial. METHODS: We organized our discussion around a different theme for each topic. RESULTS: "Fundamentally an extrapolation" refers to the non-statistical considerations and assumptions needed when using surrogate endpoints to evaluate a new treatment. "Decision analysis to the rescue" refers to use the use of decision analysis to evaluate an additional prognostic marker because it is not possible to choose between purely statistical measures of marker performance. "The appeal of simplicity" refers to a straightforward and efficient use of a single randomized trial to evaluate overall treatment effect and treatment effect within subgroups using predictive markers. CONCLUSION: The simple themes provide a general guideline for evaluation of surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers.

National Lung Screening Trial findings by age: Medicare-eligible versus under-65 population.

BACKGROUND: The NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) showed reduced lung cancer mortality in high-risk participants (smoking history of ≥30 pack-years) aged 55 to 74 years who were randomly assigned to screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus those assigned to chest radiography. An advisory panel recently expressed reservations about Medicare coverage of LDCT screening because of concerns about performance in the Medicare-aged population, which accounted for only 25% of the NLST participants. OBJECTIVE: To examine the results of the NLST LDCT group by age (Medicare-eligible vs. <65 years). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a group from a randomized trial (NCT00047385). SETTING: 33 U.S. screening centers. PATIENTS: 19 612 participants aged 55 to 64 years (under-65 cohort) and 7110 participants aged 65 to 74 years (65+ cohort) at randomization. INTERVENTION: 3 annual rounds of LDCT screening. MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, smoking and medical history, screening examination adherence and results, diagnostic follow-up procedures and complications, lung cancer diagnoses, treatment, survival, and mortality. RESULTS: The aggregate false-positive rate was higher in the 65+ cohort than in the under-65 cohort (27.7% vs. 22.0%; P < 0.001). Invasive diagnostic procedures after false-positive screening results were modestly more frequent in the older cohort (3.3% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.039). Complications from invasive procedures were low in both groups (9.8% in the under-65 cohort vs. 8.5% in the 65+ cohort). Prevalence and positive predictive value (PPV) were higher in the 65+ cohort (PPV, 4.9% vs. 3.0%). Resection rates for screen-detected cancer were similar (75.6% in the under-65 cohort vs. 73.2% in the 65+ cohort). Five-year all-cause survival was lower in the 65+ cohort (55.1% vs. 64.1%; P = 0.018). LIMITATION: The oldest screened patient was aged 76 years. CONCLUSION: NLST participants aged 65 years or older had a higher rate of false-positive screening results than those younger than 65 years but a higher cancer prevalence and PPV. Screen-detected cancer was treated similarly in the groups. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

The National Lung Screening Trial: results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which compared lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest radiography (CXR), demonstrated a statistically significant mortality benefit of LDCT screening. In the current study, the authors performed a post hoc analysis to examine whether the benefit was affected by various baseline factors, including age, sex, and smoking status, and whether it differed by tumor histology. METHODS: Lung cancer death rates were computed as events over person-years of observation; the mortality risk ratio (RR) was defined as the lung cancer death rate in the LDCT versus CXR trial arms. Poisson regression was used to test for interactions of sex, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), and smoking status (current vs former) with trial arm. Mortality RRs were also computed for specific lung cancer histologies. RESULTS: The overall mortality RR was 0.92 in men and 0.73 in women, with a P value for interaction of .08. RRs were similar for individuals aged < 65 years versus those aged ≥ 65 years (0.82 vs 0.87), and for current versus former smokers (0.81 vs 0.91). By tumor histology, mortality RRs were 0.75 for adenocarcinoma, 0.71 for all non-small cell lung cancers except squamous, 1.23 for squamous cell carcinoma, and 0.90 for small cell carcinoma. RRs were similar for men and women for nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancers (0.71 and 0.70, respectively); women were found to have lower RRs for small cell and squamous cell carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: A benefit of LDCT did not appear to vary substantially by age or smoking status; there was weak evidence of a differential benefit by sex. A differential benefit across lung cancer histologies may exist.

Cancer screening in China: a steep road from evidence to implementation.

Cancer screening has the potential to decrease mortality from several common cancer types. The first cancer screening programme in China was initiated in 1958 and the Cancer High Incidence Fields established in the 1970s have provided an extensive source of information for national cancer screening programmes. From 2012 onwards, four ongoing national cancer screening programmes have targeted eight cancer types: cervical, breast, colorectal, lung, oesophageal, stomach, liver, and nasopharyngeal cancers. By synthesising evidence from pilot screening programmes and population-based studies for various screening tests, China has developed a series of cancer screening guidelines. Nevertheless, challenges remain for the implementation of a fully successful population-based programme. The aim of this Review is to highlight the key milestones and the current status of cancer screening in China, describe what has been achieved to date, and identify the barriers in transitioning from evidence to implementation. We also make a set of implementation recommendations on the basis of the Chinese experience, which might be useful in the establishment of cancer screening programmes in other countries.

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.