Recruitment methods employed in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) is a US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether certain screening tests reduce mortality from prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. To obtain adequate statistical power, it was necessary to enroll over 150,000 healthy volunteers. Recruitment began in 1993 and ended in 2001. PURPOSE: Our goal is to evaluate the success of recruitment methods employed by the 10 PLCO screening centers. We also provide estimates of recruitment yield and cost for our most successful strategy, direct mail. METHODS: Each screening center selected its own methods of recruitment. Methods changed throughout the recruitment period as needed. For this manuscript, representatives from each screening center provided information on methods utilized and their success. RESULTS: In the United States between 1993 and 2001, ten screening centers enrolled 154,934 study participants. Based on participant self-report, an estimated 95% of individuals were recruited by direct mail. Overall, enrollment yield for direct mail was 1.0%. Individual center enrollment yield ranged from 0.7% to 3.8%. Cost per enrolled participant was $9.64-35.38 for direct mail, excluding personnel costs. LIMITATIONS: Numeric data on recruitment processes were not kept consistently at individual screening centers. Numeric data in this manuscript are based on the experiences of 5 of the 10 centers. CONCLUSIONS: Direct mail, using rosters of names and addresses from profit and not-for-profit (including government) organizations, was the most successful and most often used recruitment method. Other recruitment strategies, such as community outreach and use of mass media, can be an important adjunct to direct mail in recruiting minority populations.

Final results of the Lung Screening Study, a randomized feasibility study of spiral CT versus chest X-ray screening for lung cancer.

The Lung Screening Study (LSS) was a pilot study designed to assess the feasibility of conducting a large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of low radiation dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest X-ray (CXR) for lung cancer screening. Baseline results of LSS have been previously reported. Here, we report on the findings at the year one screen and on the final results of the LSS study. A total of 1660 subjects were randomized to the LDCT arm and 1658 to the CXR arm. Compliance with screening declined from 96% at baseline to 86% at year one in the LDCT arm and declined from 93% at baseline to 80% at year one in the CXR arm. Positivity rates for the year one screen were 25.8% for LDCT and 8.7% for CXR. Cancer yield was significantly less at year one for LDCT, 0.57%, than at baseline, 1.9%; cancer yield for CXR increased from 0.45% at baseline to 0.68% at year one. Forty lung cancers in the LDCT arm and 20 in the CXR arm were diagnosed over the study period. Stage I cancers comprised 48% of cases in the LDCT arm and 40% in the CXR arm. A total of 16 stage III-IV cancers were observed in the LDCT arm versus nine in the CXR arm. The LSS has established the feasibility of a RCT comparing annual spiral CT to chest X-ray for lung cancer screening.

False-positive cancer screens and health-related quality of life.

By design, screening tests are imperfect-unresponsive to some cancers (false negatives) while occasionally raising suspicion of cancer where none exists (false positives). This pilot study describes patients' responses to having a false-positive screening test for cancer, and identifies screening effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The pilot findings suggest issues important for incorporation in future evaluations of the impact of screening for prostate, lung, colon, or ovarian (PLCO) cancers. Seven focus groups were conducted to identify the nature and meaning of all phases of PLCO screening. Minnesota participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial who had completed screening, with at least 1 false-positive screen, participated (N = 47). Participants' reactions to abnormal screens and diagnostic work-ups were primarily emotional (eg, anxiety and distress), not physical, and ultimately positive for the majority. Health distress and fear of cancer and death were the major negative aspects of HRQoL identified. These concepts are not typically included in generic HRQoL questionnaires like the SF-36, but are highly relevant to PLCO screening. Clinicians were regarded as underestimating the discomfort of follow-up diagnostic testing. However, relief and assurance appeared to eventually outweigh the negative emotions for most participants. Implications for oncology nurses include the need to consider the emotional consequences of screening in association with screen reliability and validity.

A randomized trial of direct mailing of fecal occult blood tests to increase colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Although colorectal cancer screening by using a fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or barium enema x-ray reduces the incidence of and death from colorectal cancer, the rate of colorectal cancer screening in the general population is low. We conducted a randomized trial consisting of direct mailing of FOBT kits to increase colorectal cancer screening among residents of Wright County, Minnesota, a community in which colorectal cancer screening was promoted. METHODS: At baseline, we mailed a questionnaire about colorectal cancer screening to a random sample of Wright County residents aged 50 years or older who were randomly selected from the Minnesota State Driver's License and Identification Card database (estimated N = 1451). The sample was randomly allocated into three equal subgroups: one group (control) received only the questionnaire, one group received FOBT kits by direct mail with reminders, and one group received FOBT kits by direct mail without reminders. Study participants were sent a follow-up questionnaire 1 year after baseline. We used the responses to the questionnaires to estimate the 1-year change in self-reported screening rates in each group and the differences in the changes among the groups, along with the associated bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: At baseline, the estimated response rate was 86.5%, self-reported adherence to FOBT guidelines was 21.5%, and overall adherence to any colorectal cancer screening test guidelines was 55.8%. The 1-year rate changes in absolute percentage for self-reported adherence to FOBT use were 1.5% (95% CI = -2.9% to 5.9%) for the control group, 16.9% (95% CI = 11.5% to 22.3%) for the direct-mail-FOBT-with-no-reminders group, and 23.2% (95% CI = 17.2% to 29.3%) for the direct-mail-FOBT-with-reminders group. The 1-year rate changes for self-reported adherence to any colorectal cancer screening test were 7.8% (95% CI = 3.2% to 12.0%) for the control group, 13.2% (95% CI = 8.4% to 18.2%) for the direct-mail-FOBT-with-no-reminders group, and 14.1% (95% CI = 9.1% to 19.1%) for the direct-mail-FOBT-with-reminders group. CONCLUSION: Direct mailing of FOBT kits combined with follow-up reminders promotes more rapid increases in the use of FOBT and nearly doubles the increase in overall rate of adherence to colorectal cancer screening guidelines in a general population compared with a community-wide screening promotion and awareness campaign.

Colorectal cancer screening adherence in a general population.

BACKGROUND: This article describes the self-reported colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence rates of adults, aged 50 years and older, living in five nonurban Minnesota counties. METHODS: During the year 2000, 1693 eligible respondents, aged 50 years and older, from a randomly selected sample completed a survey assessing CRC screening adherence (approximately 86.3% response). The survey allowed differentiation between the four CRC screening modalities but did not differentiate between screening and diagnostic testing. Adjustment for nonresponse was performed using a version of Horvitz-Thompson weighting accounting for unknown eligibility. RESULTS: 24.5% of respondents had a fecal occult blood test within 1 year of the survey, 33.8% had flexible sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, 29.3% had a colonoscopy within 10 years, and 13.7% had a barium enema within the last 5 years. Overall, 55.3% of respondents reported testing by any modality; thus, 44.7% were not adherent to screening guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This study improves on previous attempts to characterize CRC screening adherence by assessing all four modalities of screening as recommended by current screening guidelines, by focusing on nonadherence, and by rigorously accounting for nonresponse. This study confirms that nearly half of the population remains unscreened by any method.