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
. 2011 Jan;26(1):79-80.
doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9519-4. Epub 2010 Oct 23.

Volunteer effect and compromised randomization in the Mayo Project of screening for lung cancer

Volunteer effect and compromised randomization in the Mayo Project of screening for lung cancer

Lorenzo Dominioni et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011 Jan.

Abstract

It has been confirmed recently that the volunteer effect in lung cancer screening is characterized by higher lung cancer mortality risk in self-selected screening participants. The Mayo Lung Project, the most influential trial of screening for lung cancer ever completed, was conducted in nonvolunteer Mayo Clinic outpatients, with a peculiar study design that rendered the randomization vulnerable to the volunteer effect. Of all nonvolunteers randomized in the Mayo Lung Project, only those allocated in the screened group were asked consent to participate in the trial. The final Mayo Lung Project report stated that 655 randomized nonvolunteers refused screening and were excluded from the study, thus documenting violation of the rule that no selection should occur after randomization. The long-term follow-up of the Mayo Lung Project showed an enigmatic result which has never been explained: the lung cancer mortality was 13% higher in the screening intervention group than in the control group [4.4 (95% CI 3.9-4.9) vs. 3.9 (95% CI 3.5-4.4) per 1,000 person-years; P = 0.09]. Such overrepresented mortality is consistent with the volunteer effect and supports the concept that the Mayo Lung Project randomization was compromised by the post-randomization self-selection of participant nonvolunteers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Richardson A, Wells JE. Breast cancer screening: the effect of self selection for screening on comparisons of randomized controlled trials. J Med Screen. 1997;4:16–18. - PubMed
    1. Blom J, Yin L, Lidén A, Dolk A, Jeppson B, Pahlman L, et al. A 9-year follow-up study of participants and nonparticipants in sigmoidoscopy screening: importance of self-selection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:1163–1168. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2764. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Otto SJ, Schroeder FH, De Koning HJ. Low all-cause mortality in the volunteer-based Rotterdam section of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer: self-selection bias? J Med Screen. 2004;11:89–92. doi: 10.1258/096914104774061074. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Levin ML, Tockman MS, Frost JK, Ball WC., Jr Lung cancer mortality in males screened by chest X-ray and cytologic sputum examination: a preliminary report. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1982;82:138–146. - PubMed
    1. Dominioni L, Rotolo N, Poli A, Paolucci M, Sessa F, D’Ambrosio V, et al. Self-selection effects in smokers attending lung cancer screening. A 9.5-year population-based cohort study in Varese, Italy. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:428–435. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181d2efc7. - DOI - PubMed