Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Second Primary Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: With advancing therapeutics, lung cancer (LC) survivors are rapidly increasing in number. Although mounting evidence suggests LC survivors have high risk of second primary lung cancer (SPLC), there is no validated prediction model available for clinical use to identify high-risk LC survivors for SPLC. METHODS: Using data from 6325 ever-smokers in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) study diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1993-2017, we developed a prediction model for 10-year SPLC risk after IPLC diagnosis using cause-specific Cox regression. We evaluated the model's clinical utility using decision curve analysis and externally validated it using 2 population-based data-Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)-that included 2963 and 2844 IPLC (101 and 93 SPLC cases), respectively. RESULTS: Over 14 063 person-years, 145 (2.3%) ever-smoking IPLC patients developed SPLC in MEC. Our prediction model demonstrated a high predictive accuracy (Brier score = 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4 to 3.3) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristics [AUC] = 81.9%, 95% CI = 78.2% to 85.5%) based on bootstrap validation in MEC. Stratification by the estimated risk quartiles showed that the observed SPLC incidence was statistically significantly higher in the 4th vs 1st quartile (9.5% vs 0.2%; P < .001). Decision curve analysis indicated that in a wide range of 10-year risk thresholds from 1% to 20%, the model yielded a larger net-benefit vs hypothetical all-screening or no-screening scenarios. External validation using PLCO and NLST showed an AUC of 78.8% (95% CI = 74.6% to 82.9%) and 72.7% (95% CI = 67.7% to 77.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a SPLC prediction model based on large population-based cohorts. The proposed prediction model can help identify high-risk LC patients for SPLC and can be incorporated into clinical decision making for SPLC surveillance and screening.

Tobacco Smoking and Risk of Second Primary Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer survivors are at high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, SPLC risk factors have not been established and the impact of tobacco smoking remains controversial. We examined the risk factors for SPLC across multiple epidemiologic cohorts and evaluated the impact of smoking cessation on reducing SPLC risk. METHODS: We analyzed data from 7059 participants in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) diagnosed with an initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) between 1993 and 2017. Cause-specific proportional hazards models estimated SPLC risk. We conducted validation studies using the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (N = 3423 IPLC cases) and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (N = 4731 IPLC cases) cohorts and pooled the SPLC risk estimates using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 163 MEC cases (2.3%) developed SPLC. Smoking pack-years (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.18 per 10 pack-years, p < 0.001) and smoking intensity (HR = 1.30 per 10 cigarettes per day, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased SPLC risk. Individuals who met the 2013 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's screening criteria at IPLC diagnosis also had an increased SPLC risk (HR = 1.92; p < 0.001). Validation studies with the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition revealed consistent results. Meta-analysis yielded pooled HRs of 1.16 per 10 pack-years (pmeta < 0.001), 1.25 per 10 cigarettes per day (pmeta < 0.001), and 1.99 (pmeta < 0.001) for meeting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's criteria. In MEC, smoking cessation after IPLC diagnosis was associated with an 83% reduction in SPLC risk (HR = 0.17; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco smoking is a risk factor for SPLC. Smoking cessation may reduce the risk of SPLC. Additional strategies for SPLC surveillance and screening are warranted.

Factors Associated With Small Aggressive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers in the National Lung Screening Trial: A Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) have been observed to spread to distant lymph nodes (N3) or metastasize (M1) or both, while the primary tumor is small (≤3 cm, T1). These small aggressive NSCLCs (SA-NSLSC) are important as they are clinically significant, may identify unique biologic pathways, and warrant aggressive follow-up and treatment. This study identifies factors associated with SA-NSCLC and attempts to validate a previous finding that women with a family history of lung cancer are at particularly elevated risk of SA-NSCLC. METHODS: This study used a case-case design within the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) cohort. Case patients and "control" patients were selected based on TNM staging parameters. Case patients (n = 64) had T1 NSCLCs that were N3 or M1 or both, while "control" patients (n = 206) had T2 or T3, N0 to N2, and M0 NSCLCs. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with SA-NSCLC. RESULTS: In bootstrap bias-corrected multivariable logistic regression models, small aggressive adenocarcinomas were associated with a positive history of emphysema (odds ratio [OR] = 5.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.63 to 23.00) and the interaction of female sex and a positive family history of lung cancer (OR = 6.55, 95% CI = 1.06 to 50.80). CONCLUSIONS: Emphysema may play a role in early lung cancer progression. Females with a family history of lung cancer are at increased risk of having small aggressive lung adenocarcinomas. These results validate previous findings and encourage research on the role of female hormones interacting with family history and genetic factors in lung carcinogenesis and progression.

Incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the change in risk conferred by family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) as a person ages. We evaluated the effect of family history on CRC incidence and mortality after 55 years of age, when the risk of early onset cancer had passed. METHODS: We collected data from participants in the randomized, controlled Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy versus usual care (55-74 years old, no history of CRC), performed at 10 US centers from 1993 to 2001. A detailed family history of colorectal cancer was obtained at enrollment, and subjects were followed for CRC incidence and mortality for up to 13 years. RESULTS: Among 144,768 participants, 14,961 subjects (10.3%) reported a family of CRC. Of 2090 incident cases, 273 cases (13.1%) had a family history of CRC; among 538 deaths from CRC, 71 (13.2%) had a family history of CRC. Overall, family history of CRC was associated with an increased risk of CRC incidence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.50; P<.0001) and increased mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.69; P = .03). Subjects with 1 first degree relative (FDR) with CRC (n = 238; HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42) or ≥2 FDRs with CRC (n = 35; HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.44-2.86) were at increased risk for incident CRC. However, among individuals with 1 FDR with CRC, there were no differences in risk based on age at diagnosis in the FDR (for FDR <60 years of age: HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.97-1.63; for FDR 60-70 years of age: HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62; for FDR >70 years of age: HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45; P trend = .59). CONCLUSIONS: After 55 years of age, subjects with 1 FDR with CRC had only a modest increase in risk for CRC incidence and death; age of onset in the FDR was not significantly associated with risk. Individuals with ≥2 FDRs with CRC had continued increased risk in older age. Guidelines and clinical practice for subjects with a family history of CRC should be modified to align CRC testing to risk. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.

Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer risks at which individuals should be screened with computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer are undecided. This study's objectives are to identify a risk threshold for selecting individuals for screening, to compare its efficiency with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for identifying screenees, and to determine whether never-smokers should be screened. Lung cancer risks are compared between smokers aged 55-64 and ≥ 65-80 y. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Applying the PLCO(m2012) model, a model based on 6-y lung cancer incidence, we identified the risk threshold above which National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, n = 53,452) CT arm lung cancer mortality rates were consistently lower than rates in the chest X-ray (CXR) arm. We evaluated the USPSTF and PLCO(m2012) risk criteria in intervention arm (CXR) smokers (n = 37,327) of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). The numbers of smokers selected for screening, and the sensitivities, specificities, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for identifying lung cancers were assessed. A modified model (PLCOall2014) evaluated risks in never-smokers. At PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151, the 65th percentile of risk, the NLST CT arm mortality rates are consistently below the CXR arm's rates. The number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death in the 65th to 100th percentile risk group is 255 (95% CI 143 to 1,184), and in the 30th to <65th percentile risk group is 963 (95% CI 291 to -754); the number needed to screen could not be estimated in the <30th percentile risk group because of absence of lung cancer deaths. When applied to PLCO intervention arm smokers, compared to the USPSTF criteria, the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 threshold selected 8.8% fewer individuals for screening (p<0.001) but identified 12.4% more lung cancers (sensitivity 80.1% [95% CI 76.8%-83.0%] versus 71.2% [95% CI 67.6%-74.6%], p<0.001), had fewer false-positives (specificity 66.2% [95% CI 65.7%-66.7%] versus 62.7% [95% CI 62.2%-63.1%], p<0.001), and had higher PPV (4.2% [95% CI 3.9%-4.6%] versus 3.4% [95% CI 3.1%-3.7%], p<0.001). In total, 26% of individuals selected for screening based on USPSTF criteria had risks below the threshold PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Of PLCO former smokers with quit time >15 y, 8.5% had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. None of 65,711 PLCO never-smokers had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Risks and lung cancers were significantly greater in PLCO smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y than in those aged 55-64 y. This study omitted cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The USPSTF criteria for CT screening include some low-risk individuals and exclude some high-risk individuals. Use of the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 criterion can improve screening efficiency. Currently, never-smokers should not be screened. Smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y are a high-risk group who may benefit from screening. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Impact of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening programs may provide opportunities to reduce smoking rates among participants. This study evaluates the impact of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation. METHODS: Data from Lung Screening Study participants in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; 2002-2009) were used to prepare multivariable longitudinal regression models predicting annual smoking cessation in those who were current smokers at study entry (n = 15489, excluding those developing lung cancer in follow-up). The associations of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation over the trial period were analyzed. All hypothesis testing used two sided P values. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, smoking cessation was strongly associated with the amount of abnormality observed in the previous year's screening (P < .0001). Compared with those with a normal screen, individuals were less likely to be smokers if their previous year's screen had a major abnormality that was not suspicious for lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.811; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.722 to 0.912; P < .001), was suspicious for lung cancer but stable from previous screens (OR = 0.785; 95% CI = 0.706 to 0.872; P < .001), or was suspicious for lung cancer and was new or changed from the previous screen (OR = 0.663; 95% CI = 0.607 to 0.724; P < .001). Differences in smoking prevalence were present up to 5 years after the last screen. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation is statistically significantly associated with screen-detected abnormality. Integration of effective smoking cessation programs within screening programs should lead to further reduction in smoking-related morbidity and mortality.

Modified Gleason grade of prostatic adenocarcinomas detected in the PLCO cancer screening trial.

PURPOSE: We determined the modified Gleason grade of prostatic adenocarcinomas detected in PLCO to assess grade distribution and compare modified Gleason grades of cancer detected in the intervention arm (organized annual screening) vs the control arm (opportunistic screening). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Modified Gleason grading was performed in 859 radical prostatectomy cases by a single urological pathologist. We compared the proportion of cases with high grade disease in the screened arm vs the control arm by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In the intervention arm a modified Gleason score of 5, 6, 7 (3+4), 7 (4+3), 8, 9 and 10 was assigned in 3.6%, 43.3%, 39%, 7.4%, 3.5%, 3.2% and 0.1% of cases, respectively. In the control arm a modified Gleason score of 5, 6, 7 (3+4), 7 (4+3), 8, 9 and 10 was assigned in 3.0%, 35.7%, 46.4%, 7.1%, 5.4%, 1.9% and 0.5% of cases, respectively, after correcting for high grade disease over sampling. A high grade modified Gleason score of 7 or greater was detected in 53% of cases in the intervention arm vs 61.3% in the control arm after correction (p=0.019). The median modified Gleason score was 7 (3+4) in each arm. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percent of cancers in each arm had a component of high grade disease. The modified Gleason grade of prostate cancers detected by organized annual screening was slightly lower than the modified grade of those detected by opportunistic screening. This is an expected consequence of more intensive screening.

Assessing the risk of ovarian malignancy in asymptomatic women with abnormal CA 125 and transvaginal ultrasound scans in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian screening trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of ovarian malignancy among asymptomatic women with abnormal transvaginal ultrasound scans or CA 125 and to provide guidance to physicians managing these women. METHODS: A cohort of women from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial with abnormal ovarian results at the initial (T0) and subsequent (T1+) screens were analyzed to estimate which findings were associated with high risk of ovarian cancer. Cancer risks more than 10% were designated as high and risks of 3% or less were designated as low. RESULTS: For the T0 screen, two high-risk categories were identified: CA 125 of 70 or more with negative transvaginal ultrasound scan (positive predictive value [PPV] 15.9%, CI 14.7-17.7%); and positive for both CA 125 and transvaginal ultrasound scan (PPV 25.0%, CI 23.3-27.3%). For T1+ screens, three high-risk categories were identified: negative transvaginal ultrasound scan with change in CA 125 of 45 or more (PPV 29.0%, CI 28.3-30.3%); increase in size of cyst 6 cm or more with negative CA 125 (PPV 13.3%, CI 10.5-18.0%); and positive for both tests (PPV 42.9%, CI 40.0-46.0%). High-risk criteria for T0 provide a sensitivity of 60%, specificity of 96.2%, PPV of 19.7%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.3%. T1+ criteria yielded a sensitivity of 85.3%, specificity of 95.6%, PPV of 29.6%, and NPV of 99.7%. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk categories for predicting risk of cancer in women with abnormal CA 125, transvaginal ultrasound scan, or both at initial and subsequent screens have been identified. The large number of women in this study, the 4-year complete follow-up, and small number of invasive cancers in the low-risk categories provide guidance for clinical decisions regarding need for surgery in these women. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Predictors of adverse smoking outcomes in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking behavior is unclear. The aims of this ancillary study of the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial were to produce risk prediction models to identify individuals at risk of relapse or continued smoking and to evaluate whether cancer-screening variables affect long-term smoking outcomes. METHODS: Participants completed a baseline questionnaire at trial enrollment and a supplemental questionnaire 4-14 years after enrollment, which assessed several cancer-related variables, including family history of cancer, comorbidities, and tobacco use. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to predict smoking status at completion of the supplemental questionnaire. The models' predictive performances were evaluated by assessing discrimination via the receiver operator characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) and calibration. Models were internally validated using bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Of the 31 694 former smokers on the baseline questionnaire, 1042 (3.3%) had relapsed (ie, reported being a current smoker on the supplemental questionnaire). Of the 6807 current smokers on the baseline questionnaire, 4439 (65.2%) reported continued smoking on the supplemental questionnaire. Relapse was associated with multiple demographic, medical, and tobacco-related characteristics. This model had a bootstrap median ROC AUC of 0.862 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.858 to 0.866) and a calibration slope of 1.004 (95% CI = 0.978 to 1.029), indicating excellent discrimination and calibration. Predictors of continued smoking also included multiple demographic, medical, and tobacco-related characteristics. This model had an ROC AUC of 0.611 (95% CI = 0.605 to 0.614) and a slope of 1.006 (95% CI = 0.962 to 1.041), indicating modest discrimination. Neither the trial arm nor the lung-screening result was statistically significantly associated with smoking outcomes. CONCLUSION: These models, if validated externally, may have public health utility in identifying individuals at risk for adverse smoking outcomes, who may benefit from relapse prevention and smoking cessation interventions.

Long-term disease-specific functioning among prostate cancer survivors and noncancer controls in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial.

PURPOSE: Within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), we assessed the long-term disease-specific functioning among prostate cancer (PCa) survivors versus noncancer controls, the impact of trial arm (screening/usual care) on functioning, and the effect of treatment modality on functioning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PCa survivors (n = 529), 5 to 10 years postdiagnosis, were frequency-matched to noncancer controls (n = 514) for race, screening center, year of enrollment, and trial arm. Participants completed a telephone interview regarding PCa-specific symptomatology. Weights accounted for patient selection from the five PLCO screening centers. Propensity-score methods were used to balance groups of interest with respect to demographic and medical characteristics. RESULTS: Weighted linear regression analyses revealed poorer sexual and urinary function among PCa survivors compared with noncancer controls (P < .001). Trial arm was not significantly related to any outcome (P > .31). Compared with radical prostatectomy patients (n = 201), radiation-therapy patients (n = 110) reported better sexual (P < .05) and urinary (P < .001) functioning but poorer bowel outcomes (P < .05). Survivors who received treatment combinations including androgen deprivation (n = 207) reported significantly poorer hormone-related symptoms compared with radical prostatectomy patients (P < .05). CONCLUSION This study demonstrated the persistence of clinically significant, long-term PCa treatment-related sexual and urinary adverse effects up to 10 years postdiagnosis. To our knowledge, this was the first comparison of prostate-related dysfunction among screened survivors versus screened noncancer controls and indicated that these long-term problems were attributable to PCa treatment and not to aging or comorbidities. Finally, differences in long-term adverse effects between treatment modalities are particularly relevant for patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions.

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.).

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and the risk of benign prostatic hyperplasia-related outcomes and nocturia in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Therapy (cohort) Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Accumulating evidence suggests that inflammation may contribute to the development of BPH and LUTS. Therefore, it is plausible that anti-inflammatory agents, such as aspirin and other NSAIDs, may reduce the risk of BPH/LUTS, as was observed in a recent analysis of daily aspirin use and BPH/LUTS risk in the Olmsted County Study of Urinary Symptoms and Health Status in Men. The present study, conducted in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, found no association for recent aspirin or ibuprofen use with the risk of BPH/LUTS. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use and the incidence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related outcomes and nocturia, a lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) of BPH, in light of accumulating evidence suggesting a role for inflammation in BPH/LUTS development. PATIENTS AND METHODS: At baseline, participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial completed questions on recent, regular aspirin and ibuprofen use, BPH surgery, diagnosis of an enlarged prostate/BPH, and nocturia. Participants in the intervention arm also underwent a digital rectal examination (DRE), from which prostate dimensions were estimated, as well as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Only participants in the intervention arm without BPH/LUTS at baseline were included in the analysis (n= 4771). • During follow-up, participants underwent annual DREs and PSA tests, provided annual information on finasteride use, and completed a supplemental questionnaire in 2006-2008 that included additional questions on diagnosis of an enlarged prostate/BPH and nocturia. • Information collected was used to investigate regular aspirin or ibuprofen use in relation to the incidence of six BPH/LUTS definitions: diagnosis of an enlarged prostate/BPH, nocturia (waking two or more times per night to urinate), finasteride use, any self-reported BPH/LUTS, prostate enlargement (estimated prostate volume ≥30 mL on any follow-up DRE) and elevation in PSA level (>1.4 ng/mL on any follow-up PSA test). RESULTS: Generally, null results were observed for any recent, regular aspirin or ibuprofen use (risk ratio = 0.92-1.21, P= 0.043-0.91) and frequency of use (risk ratios for one category increase in NSAID use = 0.98-1.11, P-trends = 0.10-0.99) with incident BPH/LUTS. CONCLUSION: The findings obtained in the present study do not support a protective role for recent NSAID use in BPH/LUTS development.

Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was undertaken to determine whether there is a reduction in prostate cancer mortality from screening using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination (DRE). Mortality after 7-10 years of follow-up has been reported previously. We report extended follow-up to 13 years after the trial. METHODS: A total of 76 685 men, aged 55-74 years, were enrolled at 10 screening centers between November 1993 and July 2001 and randomly assigned to the intervention (organized screening of annual PSA testing for 6 years and annual DRE for 4 years; 38 340 men) and control (usual care, which sometimes included opportunistic screening; 38 345 men) arms. Screening was completed in October 2006. All incident prostate cancers and deaths from prostate cancer through 13 years of follow-up or through December 31, 2009, were ascertained. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated as the ratio of observed rates in the intervention and control arms, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated assuming a Poisson distribution for the number of events. Poisson regression modeling was used to examine the interactions with respect to prostate cancer mortality between trial arm and age, comorbidity status, and pretrial PSA testing. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Approximately 92% of the study participants were followed to 10 years and 57% to 13 years. At 13 years, 4250 participants had been diagnosed with prostate cancer in the intervention arm compared with 3815 in the control arm. Cumulative incidence rates for prostate cancer in the intervention and control arms were 108.4 and 97.1 per 10 000 person-years, respectively, resulting in a relative increase of 12% in the intervention arm (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.17). After 13 years of follow-up, the cumulative mortality rates from prostate cancer in the intervention and control arms were 3.7 and 3.4 deaths per 10 000 person-years, respectively, resulting in a non-statistically significant difference between the two arms (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.36). No statistically significant interactions with respect to prostate cancer mortality were observed between trial arm and age (P(interaction) = .81), pretrial PSA testing (P(interaction) = .52), and comorbidity (P(interaction) = .68). CONCLUSIONS: After 13 years of follow-up, there was no evidence of a mortality benefit for organized annual screening in the PLCO trial compared with opportunistic screening, which forms part of usual care, and there was no apparent interaction with age, baseline comorbidity, or pretrial PSA testing.

Longitudinal evaluation of CA-125 velocity and prediction of ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CA-125 velocity is a statistically significant predictor of ovarian cancer and develop a classification rule to screen for ovarian cancer. METHODS: In the ovarian component of the PLCO cancer screening trial, 28,038 women aged 55-74 had at least two CA-125 screening tests. Ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 72 (0.26%) women. A multiple logistic regression model was developed to evaluate CA-125 velocity and other related covariates as predictors of ovarian cancer. Predictive accuracy was assessed by the concordance index and measures of discrimination and calibration while the fit of the model was assessed by the Hosmer and Lemeshow's goodness-of-fit χ(2)test. RESULTS: CA-125 velocity decreased as the number of CA-125 measurements increased but was unaffected by age at baseline screen and family history of ovarian cancer. The average velocity (19.749U/ml per month) of the cancer group was more than 500 times the average velocity (0.035U/ml per month) of the non-cancer group. CONCLUSION: Among six covariates used in the model, CA-125 velocity and time intervals between baseline and second to last screening test and between last two screening tests were statistically significant predictors of ovarian cancer. The chance of having ovarian cancer increased as velocity increased, and the chance decreased when the time intervals between baseline and the second to last screening test and between last two screening tests of an individual increased.

Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial.

CONTEXT: The effect on mortality of screening for lung cancer with modern chest radiographs is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect on mortality of screening for lung cancer using radiographs in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial that involved 154,901 participants aged 55 through 74 years, 77,445 of whom were assigned to annual screenings and 77,456 to usual care at 1 of 10 screening centers across the United States between November 1993 and July 2001. The data from a subset of eligible participants for the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which compared chest radiograph with spiral computed tomographic (CT) screening, were analyzed. INTERVENTION: Participants in the intervention group were offered annual posteroanterior view chest radiograph for 4 years. Diagnostic follow-up of positive screening results was determined by participants and their health care practitioners. Participants in the usual care group were offered no interventions and received their usual medical care. All diagnosed cancers, deaths, and causes of death were ascertained through the earlier of 13 years of follow-up or until December 31, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality from lung cancer. Secondary outcomes included lung cancer incidence, complications associated with diagnostic procedures, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Screening adherence was 86.6% at baseline and 79% to 84% at years 1 through 3; the rate of screening use in the usual care group was 11%. Cumulative lung cancer incidence rates through 13 years of follow-up were 20.1 per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group and 19.2 per 10,000 person-years in the usual care group (rate ratio [RR]; 1.05, 95% CI, 0.98-1.12). A total of 1213 lung cancer deaths were observed in the intervention group compared with 1230 in usual care group through 13 years (mortality RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.22). Stage and histology were similar between the 2 groups. The RR of mortality for the subset of participants eligible for the NLST, over the same 6-year follow-up period, was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81-1.10). CONCLUSION: Annual screening with chest radiograph did not reduce lung cancer mortality compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002540.

Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial.

CONTEXT: Screening for ovarian cancer with cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) and transvaginal ultrasound has an unknown effect on mortality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of screening for ovarian cancer on mortality in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial of 78,216 women aged 55 to 74 years assigned to undergo either annual screening (n = 39,105) or usual care (n = 39,111) at 10 screening centers across the United States between November 1993 and July 2001. Intervention The intervention group was offered annual screening with CA-125 for 6 years and transvaginal ultrasound for 4 years. Participants and their health care practitioners received the screening test results and managed evaluation of abnormal results. The usual care group was not offered annual screening with CA-125 for 6 years or transvaginal ultrasound but received their usual medical care. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 13 years (median [range], 12.4 years [10.9-13.0 years]) for cancer diagnoses and death until February 28, 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality from ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancers. Secondary outcomes included ovarian cancer incidence and complications associated with screening examinations and diagnostic procedures. RESULTS: Ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 212 women (5.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 176 (4.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (rate ratio [RR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.48). There were 118 deaths caused by ovarian cancer (3.1 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 100 deaths (2.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (mortality RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.82-1.71). Of 3285 women with false-positive results, 1080 underwent surgical follow-up; of whom, 163 women experienced at least 1 serious complication (15%). There were 2924 deaths due to other causes (excluding ovarian, colorectal, and lung cancer) (76.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 2914 deaths (76.2 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Among women in the general US population, simultaneous screening with CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound compared with usual care did not reduce ovarian cancer mortality. Diagnostic evaluation following a false-positive screening test result was associated with complications. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002540.

Lung cancer risk prediction: Prostate, Lung, Colorectal And Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial models and validation.

INTRODUCTION: Identification of individuals at high risk for lung cancer should be of value to individuals, patients, clinicians, and researchers. Existing prediction models have only modest capabilities to classify persons at risk accurately. METHODS: Prospective data from 70 962 control subjects in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) were used in models for the general population (model 1) and for a subcohort of ever-smokers (N = 38 254) (model 2). Both models included age, socioeconomic status (education), body mass index, family history of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, recent chest x-ray, smoking status (never, former, or current), pack-years smoked, and smoking duration. Model 2 also included smoking quit-time (time in years since ever-smokers permanently quit smoking). External validation was performed with 44 223 PLCO intervention arm participants who completed a supplemental questionnaire and were subsequently followed. Known available risk factors were included in logistic regression models. Bootstrap optimism-corrected estimates of predictive performance were calculated (internal validation). Nonlinear relationships for age, pack-years smoked, smoking duration, and quit-time were modeled using restricted cubic splines. All reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS: During follow-up (median 9.2 years) of the control arm subjects, 1040 lung cancers occurred. During follow-up of the external validation sample (median 3.0 years), 213 lung cancers occurred. For models 1 and 2, bootstrap optimism-corrected receiver operator characteristic area under the curves were 0.857 and 0.805, and calibration slopes (model-predicted probabilities vs observed probabilities) were 0.987 and 0.979, respectively. In the external validation sample, models 1 and 2 had area under the curves of 0.841 and 0.784, respectively. These models had high discrimination in women, men, whites, and nonwhites. CONCLUSION: The PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.

Lung cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The 5-year overall survival rate of lung cancer patients is approximately 15%. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease and have shorter survival rates than patients with early-stage disease. Although screening for lung cancer has the potential to increase early diagnosis, it has not been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality rates. In 1993, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was initiated specifically to determine whether screening would reduce mortality rates from PLCO cancers. METHODS: A total of 77 464 participants, aged 55-74 years, were randomly assigned to the intervention arm of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial between November 8, 1993, and July 2, 2001. Participants received a baseline chest radiograph (CXR), followed by three annual single-view CXRs at the 10 US screening centers. Cancers were classified as screen detected and nonscreen detected (interval or never screened) and according to tumor histology. The positivity rates of screen-detected cancers and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. Because 51.6% of the participants were current or former smokers, logistic regression analysis was performed to control for smoking status. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Compliance with screening decreased from 86.6% at baseline to 78.9% at the last screening. Overall positivity rates were 8.9% at baseline and 6.6%-7.1% at subsequent screenings; positivity rates increased modestly with smoking risk categories (P(trend) < .001). The PPVs for all participants were 2.0% at baseline and 1.1%, 1.5%, and 2.4% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively; PPVs in current smokers were 5.9% at baseline and 3.3%, 4.2%, and 5.6% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A total of 564 lung cancers were diagnosed, of which 306 (54%) were screen-detected cancers and 87% were non-small cell lung cancers. Among non-small cell lung cancers, 59.6% of screen-detected cancers and 33.3% of interval cancers were early (I-II) stage. CONCLUSIONS: The PLCO Cancer Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to recruit, retain, and screen a large population over multiple years at multiple centers. A higher proportion of screen-detected lung cancers were early stage, but a conclusion on the effectiveness of CXR screening must await final PLCO results, which are anticipated at the end of 2015.

Prevalence, incidence, and natural history of simple ovarian cysts among women >55 years old in a large cancer screening trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the occurrence and natural history of simple ovarian cysts in a cohort of older women. STUDY DESIGN: Simple cysts were ascertained among a cohort of 15,735 women from the intervention arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial through 4 years of transvaginal ultrasound screening. RESULTS: Simple cysts were seen in 14% of women the first time that their ovaries were visualized. The 1-year incidence of new simple cysts was 8%. Among ovaries with 1 simple cyst at the first screen, 54% retained 1 simple cyst, and 32% had no cyst 1 year later. Simple cysts did not increase risk of subsequent invasive ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION: Simple ovarian cysts are fairly common among postmenopausal women, and most cysts appear stable or resolve by the next annual examination. These findings support recent recommendations to follow unilocular simple cysts in postmenopausal women without intervention.

Cumulative incidence of false-positive results in repeated, multimodal cancer screening.

PURPOSE: Multiple cancer screening tests have been advocated for the general population; however, clinicians and patients are not always well-informed of screening burdens. We sought to determine the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result and the resulting risk of a diagnostic procedure for an individual participating in a multimodal cancer screening program. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the intervention arm of the ongoing Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, a randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening on disease-specific mortality. The 68,436 participants, aged 55 to 74 years, were randomized to screening or usual care. Women received serial serum tests to detect cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), transvaginal sonograms, posteroanterior-view chest radiographs, and flexible sigmoidoscopies. Men received serial chest radiographs, flexible sigmoidoscopies, digital rectal examinations, and serum prostate-specific antigen tests. Fourteen screening examinations for each sex were possible during the 3-year screening period. RESULTS: After 14 tests, the cumulative risk of having at least 1 false-positive screening test is 60.4% (95% CI, 59.8%-61.0%) for men, and 48.8% (95% CI, 48.1%-49.4%) for women. The cumulative risk after 14 tests of undergoing an invasive diagnostic procedure prompted by a false-positive test is 28.5% (CI, 27.8%-29.3%) for men and 22.1% (95% CI, 21.4%-22.7%) for women. CONCLUSIONS: For an individual in a multimodal cancer screening trial, the risk of a false-positive finding is about 50% or greater by the 14th test. Physicians should educate patients about the likelihood of false positives and resulting diagnostic interventions when counseling about cancer screening.