Detailed Analysis of Contamination and Compliance in Prostate PLCO
Specific Aim I. Descriptive Analyses. We will examine the following: Contamination by time interval and reason (PSA, DRE, either). Contamination by baseline screening hx, age (other covariates?). Actual Tests in screened arm (i.e., compliant but no screen due to early protocol). Speciifc Aim II. Modeling Survey Data. We will use a model to translate survey results to an actual frequency distribution of tests (allows for direct comparison with screened arm and for further modeling down the road). Specific Aim III. Alternative measures of compliance. The practical effect of compliance and contamination will be felt in terms of earlier and more frequent diagnoses of cancer. Therefore, relative cancer incidence in each arm can be used to assess effective contamination. Specifically, we propose to estimate expected PCa incidence in the absence of screening using SEER rates from the pre-PSA era. Then we calculate the "effective" contamination over compliance ratio by taking ratio of excess cases over expected in the control arm versus screened arm
Tony Miller (University of Toronto)
Richard Fagerstrom (DCP, NCI)
Barnett Kramer (Office of Disease Prevention)
Phil Prorok (DCP, NCI)
Douglas Reding (Marshfield Clinic Researh Foundation)
Timothy Church (University of Minnesota)
-
Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.
Pinsky PF, Blacka A, Kramer BS, Miller A, Prorok PC, Berg C
Clin Trials. 2010 Aug; Volume 7 (Issue 4): Pages 303-11 PUBMED