Skip to Main Content

An official website of the United States government

Government Funding Lapse

Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit  cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the Randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: Colorectal Cancer Survival by Trial Arm

Principal Investigator
Name
Maryam Doroudi
Degrees
PhD MPH
Institution
National Cancer Institute
Position Title
Cancer Prevention Fellow
Email
About this CDAS Project
Study
PLCO (Learn more about this study)
Project ID
PLCO-176
Initial CDAS Request Approval
Nov 4, 2015
Title
Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the Randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: Colorectal Cancer Survival by Trial Arm
Summary
In the United States and the United Kingdom, screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy is associated with a significant reduction in CRC-specific mortality and incidence. However, it is not clear what fraction of the observed mortality reduction is actually due to early detection of CRC, as opposed to its prevention via removal of adenomatous polyps. Using cancer survival statistics to assess the effectiveness of screening is well-known to be problematic, due to the potential biases of lead-time and over-diagnosis. Owing to these biases, a population undergoing screening may have a better observed survival rate than a similar population which is not undergoing screening. However, this does not necessarily imply a mortality reduction of the cancer of interest in the screened population due to the above biases. Lead-time and over-diagnosis can cause survival rates to improve even with no decrease in mortality. However, the converse statement may well be true; that is, if survival is not improved, then mortality rates cannot be decreased. Consequently, if survival is not better for the screened arm CRC cases than the control arm CRC cases, the early detection per se (as opposed to prevention of CRC in the first place), likely, cannot be contributing to the mortality reduction. Using PLCO trial data, we plan to investigate the association between survival (all-cause survival and CRC-specific survival) and trial arm, and CRC stage and trial arm.
Aims

We propose to examine the following specific aims using data from the PLCO trial:

Specific Aim 1: Assess whether there are differences in all-cause survival or CRC-specific survival by trial arm. Our working hypothesis is that there are no differences in all-cause survival or CRC-specific survival by trial arm.

Specific Aim 2: Assess whether there are differences in CRC tumor stage distribution by trial arm. Our working hypothesis is that there are no differences in tumor stage distribution by trial arm.

Collaborators

Dr. Paul F. Pinsky
Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute

Related Publications