Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate,Lung,Colorectal,and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial

Abstract

Background Recently, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial published 7-year complete prostate cancer mortality results, which showed no benefit of screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE). An issue of concern was the substantial level of ‘contamination’, or use of PSA and DRE in control arm men.

Purpose To provide a detailed description of contamination in PLCO.

Methods Surveys inquiring about the most recent PSA and DRE use were given to a sample of control arm men throughout the screening phase of PLCO (years 0—5). A probability model was utilized to translate survey results into actual frequency counts of tests. To assess the impact of contamination, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) incidence rates from the pre-screening era (1985—1987) as well as contemporaneous rates, were applied to PLCO person-years of observation.

Results Of 38,350 control arm men, 2427 were surveyed. Pre-trial screening and college education were statistically significantly associated with increased contamination rates. The estimated mean number of screening PSAs (DREs) in the control arm was 2.7 (1.1); this compares to 5.0 (3.5) in the screened arm. 1984 and 2538 prostate cancers were observed in the control and screened arms, respectively, during the screening phase. In the absence of screening, 960 and 949 would have been expected; with contemporaneous incidence rates, 1630 and 1611 were expected.

Limitations Due to the limitations of the surveys, in terms of both reach and scope, the exact level of PSA and DRE use in control arm men cannot be known.

Conclusions Use of prostate screening by control arm men was substantial, but also substantially less than in screened arm men. Detailed quantitative analyses of screening use across arms are critical for understanding current and future findings from the prostate component of PLCO. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 303—311. http:// ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andriole GA , Crawford ED , Grubb R. , et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1310-19.

Schroder FH , Hugosson J. , Roobol MJ , et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1320-28.

Prorok P. , Andriole GL , Bresalier RS , et al. Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21: 273-309S.

Draisma G. , Etzioni R. , Tsodikov A. , et al. Lead time and over diagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 374-83.

Surveillance Research Program. National Cancer Institute SEER*Stat software. Available at: www.seer.cancer.gov/seerstatversion6.5.1 (accessed August 2009).

Hall IH , Van Den Eeden SK , Tolsma DD , et al. Testing for prostate and colorectal cancer: comparison of self-report and medical record audit. Prev Med 2004; 39: 27-35.

Sayre EC , Bunting PS , Kopec JA. Reliability of self-report versus chart-based prostate cancer, PSA, DRE and urinary symptoms. Can J Urol 2009; 16: 4463-71.

Ciatto S. , Zappa M. , Villers A. , et al. Contamination by opportunistic screening in the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening. Br J Urol 2003; 92: 97-100.

Roemeling S. , Roobol MJ , Otto SJ , et al. Feasibility study of adjustment for contamination and non-compliance in a prostate cancer screening trial. Prostate 2007; 67: 1053-60.

10.

Roobol MJ , Kerkhof M. , Schroder FH , et al. Prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen-based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 2009; 56: 584-91.

11.

Cuzick J. , Edwards R. , Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials . Stat Med 1997; 16: 1017-29.

12.

Angrist JD , Imbens GW , Rubin DR Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 92: 444-55.

13.

Gohagan J. , Marcus P. , Fagerstrom R. , et al. Baseline findings of a randomized feasibility trial of lung cancer screening with spiral CT scan vs chest radiograph. Chest 2004; 126: 114-21.

14.

Mariotto AB , Etzioni R. , Krapcho M. , Feuer EJ Reconstructing PSA testing patterns between black and white men in the US from Medicare claims and the National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 2007; 109: 1877-86.