Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jun;37(3):216-23.
doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.05.009.

Cancer screening trials: nuts and bolts

Affiliations

Cancer screening trials: nuts and bolts

Philip C Prorok et al. Semin Oncol. 2010 Jun.

Abstract

The most rigorous and valid approach to evaluating cancer screening modalities is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). RCTs are major undertakings and the intricacies of trial design, operations, and management are generally underappreciated by the typical researcher. The purpose of this article is to inform the reader of the "nuts and bolts" of designing and conducting cancer screening RCTs. Following a brief introduction as to why RCTs are critical in evaluating screening modalities, we discuss design considerations, including the choice of design type and duration of follow-up. We next present an approach to sample-size calculations. We then discuss aspects of trial implementation, including recruitment, randomization, and data management. A discussion of commonly employed data analyses comes next, and includes methods for the primary analysis (comparison of cause-specific mortality rates between the screened and control arms for the cancer of interest), as well as for secondary endpoints such as sensitivity. We follow with a discussion of sequential monitoring and interim analysis techniques, which are used to examine the primary outcome while the trial is ongoing. We close with thoughts on lessons learned from past cancer screening RCTs and provide recommendations for future trials. Throughout the presentation we illustrate topics with examples from completed or ongoing RCTs, including the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial and the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al. Periodic Screening for Breast Cancer- the Health Insurance Plan Project and its Sequelae, 1963–1986. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1988.
    1. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982;69:349–355. - PubMed
    1. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomized trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1:829–832. - PubMed
    1. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, et al. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:187–210. - PubMed
    1. Tabar L, Faberberg G, Day NE, et al. What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? – an analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial. Br J Cancer. 1987;55:547–551. - PMC - PubMed