Lessons learned for the conduct of a successful screening trial

Similar documents
National Lung Screening Trial Results

Page 1. Selected Controversies. Cancer Screening! Selected Controversies. Breast Cancer Screening. ! Using Best Evidence to Guide Practice!

Is It Time To Implement Ovarian Cancer Screening?

A Comprehensive Cancer Center Designated by the National Cancer Institute

Current Approach to Screening for Lung Cancer. James R Jett M.D.

Selected Controversies. Cancer Screening. Breast Cancer Screening. Selected Controversies. Page 1. Using Best Evidence to Guide Practice

SCREENING FOR OVARIAN CANCER DR MACİT ARVAS

Potential Role of HE4 in Multimodal Screening for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Screening and prevention of ovarian cancer

Lung Cancer Screening

POLICY PRODUCT VARIATIONS DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND RATIONALE DEFINITIONS BENEFIT VARIATIONS DISCLAIMER CODING INFORMATION REFERENCES POLICY HISTORY

Lung Cancer Screening: Benefits and limitations to its Implementation

Page 1. Controversies in Cancer Prevention and Screening. Disclosures. Screening. Principles of Screening. I have no conflicts of interest

Page 1. Cancer Screening for Women I have no conflicts of interest. Overview. Breast, Colon, and Lung Cancer. Jeffrey A.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)

Pulmonologist s Perspective

Role of CT in Lung Cancer Screening: 2010 Stuart S. Sagel, M.D.

Will CT screening reduce overall lung cancer mortality? Associate Professor of Radiology Department of Medical Imaging UHN / MSH / WCH

Screening Programs background and clinical implementation. Denise R. Aberle, MD Professor of Radiology and Engineering

Lung Cancer Screening: To Screen or Not to Screen?

LUNG CANCER: LDCT DISCLOSURES NONE. Erika Swanson, MD Radiation Oncologist Ascension Columbia-St. Mary s February 1, /9/2018

BSO, HRT, and ERT. No relevant financial disclosures

Lung Cancer Screening: Evidence and current recommendations

Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun Medical College in Bydgoszcz Family Doctor Department CANCER PREVENTION IN GENERAL PRACTICE

IOTA and Models for Screening for Ovarian Cancer

Lung Cancer Screening

Christine Argento, MD Interventional Pulmonology Emory University

Disclosures. Cancer Screening for Women. Topics for today. But what about? What works? What doesn t? I have no conflicts of interest

New Advances in Lung Cancer

Screening for Ovarian Cancer Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Lung Cancer Screening In High Risk Populations:

Lung Cancer Screening. Eric S. Papierniak, DO NF/SG VHA UF Health

Cancer Screening I have no conflicts of interest. Principles of screening. Cancer in the World Page 1. Letting Evidence Be Our Guide

OVARIAN CANCER Updates in Screening, Early Detection and Prevention

Epidemiologic Methods for Evaluating Screening Programs. Rosa M. Crum, MD, MHS Johns Hopkins University

CANCER SCREENING. Er Chaozer Department of General Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital

3 Summary of clinical applications and limitations of measurements

Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):

None

What to know and what to make of it

Disclosures. Overview. Selection the most accurate statement: Updates in Lung Cancer Screening 5/26/17. No Financial Disclosures

FAQ-Protocol 3. BRCA mutation carrier guidelines Frequently asked questions

Learning Objectives. 1. Identify which patients meet criteria for annual lung cancer screening

Updates In Cancer Screening: Navigating a Changing Landscape

University of Connecticut. University of Connecticut Graduate School

Screening for Lung Cancer - State of the Art

Outcomes in the NLST. Health system infrastructure needs to implement screening

Cancer Screenings and Early Diagnostics

Goals of Presentation

A Summary from the 2013World Conference on Lung Cancer Sydney, Australia

Progress Update June 2017 Lay Summary Funding: $6,000,000 Grant Funded: July 2015 Dream Team Members Dream Team Leader:

Risk Reduction management for Ovarian Cancer in Women with BRCA1/2 Mutation

Primary Care Approach to Genetic Cancer Syndromes

6/6/2011. Recruitment methods employed in the. Pamela Marcus, PhD. National Cancer Institute NLST

W3C Life Sciences: Clinical Observations Interoperability: EMR + Clinical Trials Use-case for EMR + Clinical Trials Interoperability

Joint Session with ACOFP and Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA): Cancer Screening: Consensus & Controversies. Ashish Sangal, M.D.

DISCLOSURE. Lung Cancer Screening: The End of the Beginning. Learning Objectives. Relevant Financial Relationship(s) Off Label Usage

National Jewish Health, the Nation s Premier Respiratory Hospital, Announces Lung Cancer Screening Trial Using Blood Test and CT

Case Scenario 1. Pathology report Specimen from mediastinoscopy Final Diagnosis : Metastatic small cell carcinoma with residual lymphatic tissue

Management of BRCA mutation carriers

Screening for Genes for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Jewish Women

Robert J. McKenna M.D. Chief, Thoracic Surgery Cedars Sinai Medical Center

Lung Cancer Screening:

Information leaflet for women with an increased lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC)

Because ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed

LUNG CANCER SCREENING

Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

VHA Demonstration Project for Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Chest CT Screening

Treatment issues for women with BRCA germline mutation

CT screening for lung cancer. Should it be done in the Indian context?

Clinical Trials. Amy Liu. October 30, Cancer Care Ontario. Introduction to Statistical Methods for.

Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) Information for individuals and families

6 Week Course Agenda. Today s Agenda. Ovarian Cancer: Risk Factors. Winning the War 11/30/2016 on Women s Cancer Gynecologic Cancer Prevention

MPH Quiz. 1. How many primaries are present based on this pathology report? 2. What rule is this based on?

Cancer in Women. Lung cancer. Breast cancer

Did death certificates and a mortality review committee agree on lung cancer cause of death in the National Lung Screening Trial?

Epidemiology of Lung Cancer: Implications for screening and prevention

Screening for Lung Cancer

Epidemiology of Lung Cancer: Implications for screening and prevention

Alcohol & Cancer: from prevention to the patient

Cancer Screening 2009: New Tests, New Choices

Is CA-125 the Leading Biomarker in Determining Early-Onset Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis in 2016?

Screening for Ovarian Cancer: An Updated Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Prostate Cancer Screening: Risks and Benefits across the Ages

Jill Stopfer, MS, CGC Abramson Cancer Center University of Pennsylvania

Example of lung screening

Lung Cancer Screening: Now What?

EDUCATIONAL COMMENTARY CA 125. Learning Outcomes

Introduction and Background

Screening Postmenopausal Women for Ovarian Cancer

LUNG CANCER SCREENING: LUNG CANCER SCREENING: THE TIME HAS COME LUNG CANCER: A NATIONAL EPIDEMIC

LDCT Screening. Steven Kirtland, MD. Virginia Mason Medical Center February 27, 2015

Screening for ovarian cancer Kehoe, Sean

Point-Counterpoint: Screening does not impact mortality rates! 1989-Fast forward, what happened?

Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer

Lung Cancer Screening Computed Tomography Screening in Pa6ents at Risk for Lung Cancer

BRCA genes and inherited breast and ovarian cancer. Information for patients

Joshua Cohen MD Gynecologic Oncology Fellow UCLA/Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Ovarian Cancer Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention

Christine Garcia, MD 1, Liisa Lyon, MS 2, Ramey D. Littell, MD 1 and C. Bethan Powell, MD 1

Transcription:

Lessons learned for the conduct of a successful screening trial Christine D. Berg, M.D. Adjunct Professor Department of Radiation Oncology Johns Hopkins Medicine IOM State of the Science in Ovarian Cancer Research April 7, 2015

Disclosures Consultant for Medial Cancer Screening

Objectives Review PLCO and ovarian cancer screening results Contrast with NLST trial UKCTOCS Important design issues Important conduct issues Next steps

What is the PLCO? Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Screening Centers: 10 Coordinating Center Participants: 154,935 Gender: 50:50 Age: 55-74 years Recruitment: 1993-2001 Screening: 1993-2006 Baseline risk factor questionnaire Dietary questionnaires Follow-up: Annual surveys Monitoring and QA Mortality searches Interim analyses regularly

PLCO Trial: Protocol 39,115 Female Randomization 76,705 Male 78,237 Female 55-74 years of age 13 + year follow-up Screened Arm 38,350 Male 39,115 Female Chest X-ray (T0-T2, T3 for current and former smokers) Flexible sigmoidoscopy (T0, T5) Control Arm 38,355 Male 39,122 Female Routine medical care CA-125 (T0-T5) Transvaginal ultrasound (T0-T3) 38,350 Male PSA (T0-T5) Digital rectal examination (T0-T3)

Ovarian Study Design Screening intervention CA-125 annually for 6 years; 35 Units/mL TVU annually for 4 years; ovarian volume >10cm 3 ; cyst volume >10cm 3 ; any solid area or papillary projection extended into the cavity of a cystic ovarian tumor of any size; or there was any mixed (solid/cystic) component within a cystic ovarian tumor 88% power to detect 35% reduction in mortality Average follow-up 12.4 years

Females Randomized 78,216 total 39,105 intervention 39,111 usual care 4,852 prior bilateral oophorectomy 34,253 ovaries intact 34,304 ovaries intact 4,807 prior bilateral oophorectomy

Figure 2. Ovarian Cancer Cumulative Cases and Deaths Buys, S. S. et al. JAMA 2011;305:2295-2303 Copyright restrictions may apply.

NLST design Prospective, randomized trial comparing low-dose helical CT screening to chest x-ray screening for three annual screens with the endpoint of lung cancer specific mortality in 53,454 high risk participants Eligibility Age 55-74; asymptomatic current or former smoker; 30 pack year smoking history; former smokers: quit within preceding 15 years Parameters 90% power to detect 20% difference in lung cancer mortality; α = 0.05 Median follow-up for outcomes ~ 6.5 years (Maximum: 7.4) Vital status known for 97% LDCT 96% CXR http://radiology.rsna.org/content/early/2010/10/28/radiol.10091808.full

Lung cancer mortality: 10-20-2010 Arm Person Years (py) Lung cancer deaths Lung cancer mortality per 100,000 py Reduction in lung cancer mortality (%) Value of test statistic Efficacy boundary LDCT 144,102.6 356 (118) 247 20.0 3.2 2.033 CXR 143,367.5 443 (100) 309 p = 0.0041 Deficit of lung cancer deaths in CT arm exceeds that expected by chance, even allowing for multiple looks at the data. CXR arm compared with matched 30,000 cohort in PLCO, no benefit of CXR seen.

UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) Ian Jacobs, Usha Menon, Steven Skates etc. 202,638 women aged 50-74 enrolled from 2001 2006 and screened until December 31, 2011 and followed until December 31, 2014 Three arms: 101,359 in control Multi-modal screening (50,640): annual CA125 with risk of ovarian cancer algorithm applied with women recalled for repeat CA125; transvaginal ultrasound as second-line test Annual TVU (50,639) Results perhaps by end of 2015 Ongoing UK Familial ovarian cancer screening study

BRCA1 and BRCA 2 Carriers Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA 2 mutation (Narod s cohort) Finch APM, Lubinski J, Moller P et al JCO 2014:1547-1553 5,783 carriers followed prospectively for average of 5.6 years 186 new ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancers 3660 patients followed: 108 diagnosed clinically with symptoms or screening 1390 chose prophylactic surgery: 46 women with occult cancers: 27 ovarian, 18 primary fallopian tube and one peritoneal Five year survival rates for cancer cases Prophylactic group: 91.6% Clinical group: 38.4% Reduction in risk Cancer: Adjusted HR: 0.20 Overall mortality: Adjusted HR to age 70: 0.31 In my opinion, prophylactic surgery does very well and screening cannot come close

FOCUS ON POPULATION BASED SCREENING QUESTION 1: Is it worth doing? QUESTION 2: Is RCT needed? How large? QUESTION 3: Performance characteristics of modalities to test? QUESTION 4: Trial conduct challenges Compliance/contamination Monitoring of harms

Change in Ovarian Cancer Incidence Yang HP, Anderson WF, Rosenberg PS et al JCO 2013:31;2146-2151.

Design Challenges Ovarian cancer is uncommon; 1 in 2500 post-menopausal women per year NLST enrolled with risk of 4 per 1,000 per year Risk model to improve entry criteria for ovarian cancer would be highly useful Therefore to do adequately powered trial need very large sample size such as UKCTOCS Expensive, hard to do in US PLCO recruitment went from 1993 to 2001; High rate of TAH-BSO in U.S. so entry criteria of trial changed to allow women with surgery and age range expanded to add 55 59 due to slow accrual While NLST recruitment occurred over 20 months: September 2002 to April 2004

Risk Prediction for Breast, Endometrial and Ovarian Cancers Pfeiffer RM, Park Y, Kreimer AR et al PLoS Med 2013; 10(7):e1001492. Ovarian model included oral contraceptive use, menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), parity, and family history of breast or ovarian cancer White, non-hispanic women 50+ from the PLCO and AARP Diet and Health Study; validated in Nurses Health Study 10 year absolute risk ranged from 0.28% to 0.96%: AUC 0.59; discriminatory accuracy may not be as good due to decline in MHT use NLST applied to PLCO: AUC 0.689 Model could help enroll fewer patients into trial but many cancers will still occur outside enrollment criteria

Design Challenges Multiple histologies with varied natural history NLST subset analysis benefit varied by histology Adenocarcinoma 0.75 (95% CI (0.60 0.94) LDCT deaths 136 vs CXR 181 Squamous cell carcinoma 1.23 (95 % CI 0.92 1.64) LDCT deaths 102 vs CXR 83 Multiple biomarkers may be needed, imaging may discover more histologies

Performance Characteristics of chosen tests Were performance characteristics of CA125 good enough to launch large study? Sensitivity of CA125 estimated in two case-control studies for a level of 35 U/mL was 20 57% for cases occurring within 3 years; specificity of 95%. In women with ovarian masses levels elevated in 68-100% of cases and in 40 50% with Stage I disease TVU technology rather early in its development How well does a chosen test(s) need to perform: with 98% sensitivity and 99% specificity: screen 250,000 women expect 100 cancers; detect 98 cancers and 2499 women test false-positive

Conduct Challenges Compliance and Contamination in Ovarian Arm of PLCO Compliance with CA-125: assumed > 90% 85% at baseline 79% year 4 73% year 6 Compliance with TVU: assumed > 85% 84% at baseline 78% year 4 Contamination: assumed <10% CA-125 1.4-1.8% TVU 2.9-4.6%

Conduct challenges Contamination may be more of a problem if there is an exciting new modality of moderate cost and risk; population at risk of ovarian cancer probably have more health seeking behaviors than heavy smokers NLST: compliance 95% in LDCT; 93% CXR; contamination in CXR arm with CT was 4.3% Prostate arm of PLCO: 34% had PSA prior to entry; control arm: 40% annual contamination in first year to 52% in sixth year within 12 months; Intervention arm compliance: 85%

Conduct challenges Procedures to assess abnormal findings frequently involve surgical procedures with risks 34,253 ovary screening patients with 3285 (9.5%) false positives but 1080 (32%) surgeries with 163 (15%, 0.47% overall) patients with major complications NLST 26,309 in LDCT arm; 10,287 (39.1%) had positive test; 713 (6.9%) surgical procedures; 87 (12.2%, 0.33% overall) major complications Non-invasive evaluation as often as possible to rule-out malignancy, monitor closely during trial

If you get what you want, then what? Implementation of a successful screening test has many challenges An important one is the population to be screened: should it be all post-menopausal women? Women that meet trial entry criteria? CT screening recommendations have followed NLST criteria with higher age limits, however, the PLCOm2012 model demonstrates that with better selection fewer people can be screened with more cancers detected (8.8% and 12.4%) Tammemagi et al PLoS Medicine 2014; 11: e10001764.

CONCLUSIONS Need randomized controlled trial for ovarian cancer screening, focus on ovarian cancer only If UKCTOCS shows serial screening works then would need to reevaluate Need good preliminary performance data for screening modality/modalities chosen Improved risk model with GWAS or other added may improve patient selection Adequate sample size, as rapid as possible accrual which will require money Attention to detail during trial; close monitoring of compliance/contamination; morbidity/mortality; QA/QC

With Appreciation Foremost, the patients who participated in these trials without whom they could not have been conducted N L S T National Lung Screening Trial National Cancer Institute

Back-up Slides

Limitations PLCO was studying CA125 as a screening tool which introduced bias: the natural history of the marker to onset of clinical disease was altered. Estimates of the performance of CA125 (and markers correlated with CA 125) may be biased downward in specimens more than 1 year remote from diagnosis. Low sample size; particularly when stratified by histology Missing T3 research specimens EDRN/SPORE work done in clinical samples at which time acute phase reactants and other manifestations of advanced disease may affect markers

EDRN/SPORE/PLCO Biomarker Analysis Single Marker Analysis At 95% Specificity: Marker Sensitivity CA125 0.73 HE4 0.57 Transthyretin 0.47 CA15.3 0.46 CA72.4 0.40 Panel Panel Analysis At 98% Specificity: Sensitivity CA125 alone 64.6 CA125, IGF2, Leptin, MIF, Osteopontin, Prolactin CA125, B7-H4, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, HE4 CA125, HE4, IGFBP2, Mesothelin, MMP-7, SLPI, Spondin2 32.8 64.6 25.4 CA125, Apo-A1, β2m, CTAPIII, Transthyretin 52.3

Lessons Learned Meticulous attention required to many details Specimen acquisition Study design Analytic performance; quality control Biomarker levels and patterns not directly comparable at time of known clinical diagnosis and pre-clinically Difficult to establish appropriate resource for preclinical specimens of sufficient quality and numbers PLCO: 67 cases of various histologic types with specimens suitable for assessment of biomarker performance in screening out of cohort of 75,000 women