» Articles » PMID: 17244633

Evidence of a Healthy Volunteer Effect in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial

Overview
Journal Am J Epidemiol
Specialty Public Health
Date 2007 Jan 25
PMID 17244633
Citations 109
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Volunteers for prevention or screening trials are generally healthier and have lower mortality than the general population. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) is an ongoing, multicenter, randomized trial that randomized 155,000 men and women aged 55-74 years to a screening or control arm between 1993 and 2001. The authors compared demographics, mortality rates, and cancer incidence and survival rates of PLCO subjects during the early phase of the trial with those of the US population. Incidence and mortality from PLCO cancers (prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian) were excluded because they are the subject of the ongoing trial. Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality were 46 for men, 38 for women, and 43 overall (100 = standard). Cause-specific standardized mortality ratios were 56 for cancer, 37 for cardiovascular disease, and 34 for both respiratory and digestive diseases. Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality increased with time on study from 31 at year 1 to 48 at year 7. Adjusting the PLCO population to a standardized demographic distribution would increase the standardized mortality ratio only modestly to 54 for women and 55 for men. Standardized incidence ratios for all cancer were 84 in women and 73 in men, with a large range of standardized incidence ratios observed for specific cancers.

Citing Articles

Six-year performance of risk-based selection for lung cancer screening in the Manchester Lung Health Check cohort.

Goodley P, Balata H, Robbins H, Booton R, Sperrin M, Crosbie P BMJ Oncol. 2025; 3(1):e000560.

PMID: 40046247 PMC: 11880782. DOI: 10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000560.


All-cause mortality according to COVID-19 vaccination status: An analysis of the UK office for National statistics public data.

Alessandria M, Malatesta G, Di Palmo G, Cosentino M, Donzelli A F1000Res. 2025; 13:886.

PMID: 40028449 PMC: 11868741. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.154058.2.


Head-to-head comparisons of risk discrimination by questionnaire-based lung cancer risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Frick C, Seum T, Bhardwaj M, Holland-Letz T, Schottker B, Brenner H EClinicalMedicine. 2025; 80:103075.

PMID: 39968388 PMC: 11833416. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103075.


Lung cancer screening in people who have never smoked: lessons from East Asia.

Welch H, Gao W, Wilder F, Kim S, Silvestri G BMJ. 2025; 388:e081674.

PMID: 39914848 PMC: 11800067. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-081674.


Data-integration with pseudoweights and survey-calibration: application to developing US-representative lung cancer risk models for use in screening.

Wang L, Li Y, Graubard B, Katki H J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2025; 188(1):119-139.

PMID: 39810880 PMC: 11728053. DOI: 10.1093/jrsssa/qnae059.