Search

Background: Over 25 years, the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Prevention has entered some 800 agents into a chemopreventive agent testing program. Two critical steps involve: 1) in vitro/in vivo morphologic assays and 2) animal tumor assays (incidence/multiplicity reduction). We sought to determine how accurately the earlier-stage (morphologic) assays predict efficacy in the later-stage (animal tumor) assays.Methods: Focusing on 210 agents tested in both morphologic and animal tumor assays, we carried out statistical modeling of how well the six most commonly used morphologic assays predicted drug efficacy in animal tumor assays. Using multimodel inference, three statistical models were generated to evaluate the ability of these six morphologic assays to predict tumor outcomes in three different sets of animal tumor assays: 1) all tumor types, 2) mammary cancer only, and 3) colon cancer only. Using this statistical modeling approach, each morphologic assay was assigned a value reflecting how strongly it predicted outcomes in each of the three different sets of animal tumor assays.Results: We demonstrated differences in the predictive value of specific morphologic assays for positive animal tumor assay results. Some of the morphologic assays were strongly predictive of meaningful positive efficacy outcomes in animal tumor assays representing specific cancer types, particularly the aberrant crypt focus (ACF) assay for colon cancer. Moreover, less strongly predictive assays can be combined and sequenced, resulting in enhanced composite predictive ability.Conclusions: Predictive models such as these could be used to guide selection of preventive agents as well as morphologic and animal tumor assays, thereby improving the efficiency of our approach to chemopreventive agent development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of screening tests for a chronic disease such as cancer is early detection and treatment with a consequent reduction in mortality from the disease. Screening tests, however, might produce false positive and false-negative results. With an increasing number of screening tests, it is clear that the risk of a false-positive screen, a finding with potentially significant emotional, financial, and health costs, also increases. (1998, New England Journal of Medicine 338, 1089–1096), (2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92, 1657–1666), and (2000, Statistics in Medicine 19, 1865–1879) investigated this problem under the somewhat unrealistic assumption that the choice of making the decision to drop out at the kth screen does not depend upon the results of the earlier screens. In this article we obtain sufficient and necessary conditions for their assumption to hold and use one of them to provide a method for testing the validity of the assumption. A new model which does not depend on their assumption is introduced. The maximum likelihood estimator of the cumulative risk of receiving a false-positive screen under the new model is derived and its asymptotic normality is proved. The extension of the new model by incorporating covariate information is also considered. We apply our testing method and the new model to data from the breast cancer screening trial of the Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eighty-one therapeutic trials of alcohol withdrawal were found that have been published in English since 1954; controls were randomized in 29 (RCTs). Two thousand three hundred thirteen patients were randomized. Variable pretreatment description prevented estimates of delirium tremens and convulsion prevalence, but only four deaths were reported. Endpoints were thus entirely subjective in these moderately ill patients. Protocol quality of the RCTs was graded by a previously developed system for evaluating adequacy of descriptions, blinding, and essential measurements. Mean score obtained was.49 ±.03 (1 se). (A perfect paper would score 1.00.) Data presentations and statistical analyses scored.18 ±.03. There was little evidence of improvement of scores over time. Papers lacked confidence intervals, proper handling of dropouts, and ade quate details of side effects. In five RCTs, six comparisons showed that benzodiarepines are clearly superior to placebo (p >.001), but conclusions about comparisons with other drugs were not possible. In none of eight 'negative' comparisons was the probability of a type II error ( β) considered. Discovery of more effective syptomatic agents or methods of reducing the death rate will require more rigid protocols and analyses as well as larger studies to allow the use of more critical endpoints such as occurrence of delirium tremens, convulsions, or death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Present correspondence on the lung cancer mortality of the Mayo Lung Cancer Project in the United States. Impact of overdiagnosis; Excess of lung cancer incidence; Allegation of underplaying the excess mortality.

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.).

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.).

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., (© RSNA, 2010)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the effect of implementing an imaging quality assurance program on CT image quality in the Lung Screening Study component of the National Lung Screening Trial., Materials and Methods: The National Lung Screening Trial is a multicenter study in which 53,457 subjects at increased risk of lung cancer were randomized to undergo three annual chest CT or radiographic screenings for lung cancer to determine the relative effect of use of the two screening tests on lung cancer mortality. Of the 26,724 subjects randomized to the CT screening arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, the Lung Screening Study randomized 17,309 through 10 screening centers. The others were randomized through the American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Quality assurance procedures were implemented that included centralized review of a random sample of 1,504 Lung Screening Study CT examinations. Quality defect rates were tabulated., Results: Quality defect rates ranged from 0% (section reconstruction interval) to 7.1% (reconstructed field of view), and most errors were sporadic. However, a recurrently high effective tube current-time product setting at one center, excessive streak artifact at one center, and excessive section thickness at one center were detected and corrected through the quality assurance process. Field-of-view and scan length errors were less frequent over the second half of the screening period (p < 0.01 for both parameters, two-tailed, paired Student's t test). Error rates varied among the screening centers and reviewers for most parameters evaluated., Conclusion: Our experience suggested that centralized monitoring of image quality is helpful for reducing quality defects in multicenter trials.