Dataset Information

Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Extended Follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) randomized high-risk current and former smokers to three annual screens with either low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) or chest radiography (CXR) and demonstrated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT arm after a median of 6.5 years' follow-up. We report on extended follow-up of NLST subjects. METHODS:Subjects were followed by linkage to state cancer registries and the National Death Index. The number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one lung cancer death was computed as the reciprocal of the difference in the proportion of patients dying of lung cancer across arms. Lung cancer mortality rate ratios (RRs) were computed overall and adjusted for dilution effect, with the latter including only deaths with a corresponding diagnosis close enough to the end of protocol screening. RESULTS:The median follow-up times were 11.3 years for incidence and 12.3 years for mortality. In all, 1701 and 1681 lung cancers were diagnosed in the LDCT and CXR arms, respectively (RR = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.09). The observed numbers of lung cancer deaths were 1147 (with LDCT) versus 1236 (with CXR) (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-1.00). The difference in the number of patients dying of lung cancer (per 1000) across arms was 3.3, translating into an NNS of 303, which is similar to the original NNS estimate of around 320. The dilution-adjusted lung cancer mortality RR was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80-0.997). With regard to overall mortality, there were 5253 (with LDCT) and 5366 (with CXR) deaths, for a difference across arms (per 1000) of 4.2 (95% CI: -2.6 to 10.9). CONCLUSION:Extended follow-up of the NLST showed an NNS similar to that of the original analysis. There was no overall increase in lung cancer incidence in the LDCT arm versus in the CXR arm.

SUBMITTER: National Lung Screening Trial Research Team

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6764895 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Extended Follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 20190628 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) randomized high-risk current and former smokers to three annual screens with either low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) or chest radiography (CXR) and demonstrated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT arm after a median of 6.5 years' follow-up. We report on extended follow-up of NLST subjects.<h4>Methods</h4>Subjects were followed by linkage to state cancer registries and the National Death Index. The number ne ...[more]

PMID: 31260833

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScreening flexible sigmoidoscopy reduces incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Previously reported results from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial had a median follow-up of 12 years. Whether the benefit is sustained over the long term and remains so in both sexes and all age groups is uncertain. We report long-term results after an additional 5 years of follow-up.MethodsParticipants in the PLCO trial were recruited from the general population in the catchment areas of ten screening centres across the USA, without previous diagnosis of a prostate, lung, colorectal, or ovarian cancer or current cancer treatment. From 1993 to 2001, participants aged 55-74 years were randomly assigned to usual care or flexible sigmoidoscopy at baseline and again at 3 years or 5 years. Randomisation was done within blocks and stratified by centre, age, and sex. The primary endpoint was cause-specific mortality and secondary endpoints included incidence and tumour staging; cause of death was determined without knowledge of study arm. In this analysis, we assessed incidence and mortality rates overall, by time-period, and by combinations of sex, age at baseline (55-64 years/65-74 years), location (distal/proximal), and stage, on an intent-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00002540.FindingsAfter a median follow-up of 15·8 years (IQR 13·2-18·0) for incidence and 16·8 years (14·4-18·9) for mortality, the incidence of colorectal cancer was significantly lower in the intervention arm (1461 cases; 12·55 per 10 000 person-years) than with usual care (1761 cases; 15·33 per 10 000 person-years; relative risk [RR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·76-0·88). Similarly, mortality was lower in the intervention arm (417 deaths; 3·37 per 10 000 person-years) than the usual care arm (549; 4·48 per 10 000 person-years; RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·66-0·85). The reduction in mortality was limited to the distal colon, with no significant effect in the proximal colon. Reductions in incidence were significantly larger in men than women (pinteraction=0·04) and reductions in mortality were significantly larger in the older age group (65-74 years vs 55-64 years at baseline; pinteraction=0·01).InterpretationReductions in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality from flexible sigmoidoscopy screening are sustained over the long term. Differences by sex and age should be examined in other ongoing trials of colorectal cancer screening to help clarify if different screening strategies would achieve greater risk reduction.FundingExtended follow-up was funded under NIH contract HHSN261201600007I.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsApproximately 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).ConclusionsAfter 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.

Project description:BackgroundAnnual 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsOur 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.InterpretationParticipants 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.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundBy contrast with many observational studies, women in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial who were randomly allocated to receive oestrogen alone had a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer than did those who received placebo. We aimed to assess the influence of oestrogen use on longer term breast cancer incidence and mortality in extended follow-up of this cohort.MethodsBetween 1993 and 1998, the WHI enrolled 10,739 postmenopausal women from 40 US clinical centres into a randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Women aged 50-79 years who had undergone hysterectomy and had expected 3-year survival and mammography clearance were randomly allocated by a computerised, permuted block algorithm, stratified by age group and centre, to receive oral conjugated equine oestrogen (0·625 mg per day; n=5310) or matched placebo (n=5429). The trial intervention was terminated early on Feb 29, 2004, because of an adverse effect on stroke. Follow-up continued until planned termination (March 31, 2005). Consent was sought for extended surveillance from the 9786 living participants in active follow-up, of whom 7645 agreed. Using data from this extended follow-up (to Aug 14, 2009), we assessed long-term effects of oestrogen use on invasive breast cancer incidence, tumour characteristics, and mortality. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00000611.FindingsAfter a median follow-up of 11·8 years (IQR 9·1-12·9), the use of oestrogen for a median of 5·9 years (2·5-7·3) was associated with lower incidence of invasive breast cancer (151 cases, 0·27% per year) compared with placebo (199 cases, 0·35% per year; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·62-0·95; p=0·02) with no difference (p=0·76) between intervention phase (0·79, 0·61-1·02) and post-intervention phase effects (0·75, 0·51-1·09). In subgroup analyses, we noted breast cancer risk reduction with oestrogen use was concentrated in women without benign breast disease (p=0·01) or a family history of breast cancer (p=0·02). In the oestrogen group, fewer women died from breast cancer (six deaths, 0·009% per year) compared with controls (16 deaths, 0·024% per year; HR 0·37, 95% CI 0·13-0·91; p=0·03). Fewer women in the oestrogen group died from any cause after a breast cancer diagnosis (30 deaths, 0·046% per year) than did controls (50 deaths, 0·076%; HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·39-0·97; p=0·04).InterpretationOur findings provide reassurance for women with hysterectomy seeking relief of climacteric symptoms in terms of the effects of oestrogen use for about 5 years on breast cancer incidence and mortality. However, our data do not support use of oestrogen for breast cancer risk reduction because any noted benefit probably does not apply to populations at increased risk of such cancer.FundingUS National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Wyeth.

Project description:BackgroundThe National Lung Screening Trial was conducted to determine whether three annual screenings (rounds T0, T1, and T2) with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT), as compared with chest radiography, could reduce mortality from lung cancer. We present detailed findings from the first two incidence screenings (rounds T1 and T2).MethodsWe evaluated the rate of adherence of the participants to the screening protocol, the results of screening and downstream diagnostic tests, features of the lung-cancer cases, and first-line treatments, and we estimated the performance characteristics of both screening methods.ResultsAt the T1 and T2 rounds, positive screening results were observed in 27.9% and 16.8% of participants in the low-dose CT group and in 6.2% and 5.0% of participants in the radiography group, respectively. In the low-dose CT group, the sensitivity was 94.4%, the specificity was 72.6%, the positive predictive value was 2.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.9% at T1; at T2, the positive predictive value increased to 5.2%. In the radiography group, the sensitivity was 59.6%, the specificity was 94.1%, the positive predictive value was 4.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.8% at T1; both the sensitivity and the positive predictive value increased at T2. Among lung cancers of known stage, 87 (47.5%) were stage IA and 57 (31.1%) were stage III or IV in the low-dose CT group at T1; in the radiography group, 31 (23.5%) were stage IA and 78 (59.1%) were stage III or IV at T1. These differences in stage distribution between groups persisted at T2.ConclusionsLow-dose CT was more sensitive in detecting early-stage lung cancers, but its measured positive predictive value was lower than that of radiography. As compared with radiography, the two annual incidence screenings with low-dose CT resulted in a decrease in the number of advanced-stage cancers diagnosed and an increase in the number of early-stage lung cancers diagnosed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

Project description:BackgroundOvarian cancer continues to have a poor prognosis with the majority of women diagnosed with advanced disease. Therefore, we undertook the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) to determine if population screening can reduce deaths due to the disease. We report on ovarian cancer mortality after long-term follow-up in UKCTOCS.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial, postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years were recruited from 13 centres in National Health Service trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were bilateral oophorectomy, previous ovarian or active non-ovarian malignancy, or increased familial ovarian cancer risk. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS), annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Follow-up was through national registries. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer (WHO 2014 criteria) by June 30, 2020. Analyses were by intention to screen, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening using the versatile test. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type, whereas the outcomes review committee were masked to randomisation group. This study is registered with ISRCTN, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032.FindingsBetween April 17, 2001, and Sept 29, 2005, of 1 243 282 women invited, 202 638 were recruited and randomly assigned, and 202 562 were included in the analysis: 50 625 (25·0%) in the MMS group, 50 623 (25·0%) in the USS group, and 101 314 (50·0%) in the no screening group. At a median follow-up of 16·3 years (IQR 15·1-17·3), 2055 women were diagnosed with tubal or ovarian cancer: 522 (1·0%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 517 (1·0%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 1016 (1·0%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. Compared with no screening, there was a 47·2% (95% CI 19·7 to 81·1) increase in stage I and 24·5% (-41·8 to -2·0) decrease in stage IV disease incidence in the MMS group. Overall the incidence of stage I or II disease was 39·2% (95% CI 16·1 to 66·9) higher in the MMS group than in the no screening group, whereas the incidence of stage III or IV disease was 10·2% (-21·3 to 2·4) lower. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0·6%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 291 (0·6%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 619 (0·6%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. No significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths was observed in the MMS (p=0·58) or USS (p=0·36) groups compared with the no screening group.InterpretationThe reduction in stage III or IV disease incidence in the MMS group was not sufficient to translate into lives saved, illustrating the importance of specifying cancer mortality as the primary outcome in screening trials. Given that screening did not significantly reduce ovarian and tubal cancer deaths, general population screening cannot be recommended.FundingNational Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal.

Dataset Information

Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Extended Follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Publications

Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Extended Follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets