Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22488488›Full record

Trial reportCancer causes & control : CCC2012

The impact of PLCO control arm contamination on perceived PSA screening efficacy.

Roman Gulati, Alex Tsodikov, Elisabeth M Wever, Angela B Mariotto, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Jeffrey Katcher, Harry J de Koning, Ruth Etzioni

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02799303 (A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy of MRI Versus PSA for Prostate Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02799303 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy of MRI Versus PSA for Prostate Cancer Screening: The MVP Study (MRI vs PSA)

TypeinterventionalSponsorSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreRan2016 to 2020Enrolled1,010ConditionsProstate CancerArmsMulti-parametric MRI, PSA testing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. National Cancer Institute's Working Group on Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Clinical Trial Design Considerations.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. When to Discuss Prostate Cancer Screening With Average-Risk Men.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Roman GulatiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N., Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA. rgulati@fhcrc.org
Alex Tsodikov
Elisabeth M Wever
Angela B Mariotto
Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
Jeffrey Katcher
Harry J de Koning
Ruth Etzioni

Funding

Modeling prostate cancer control: prevention, screening, treatment, followup careU01CA157224 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI DE KONING, HARRY J, ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2010 to 2014
$5.3M
PSA SCREENING AND US PROSTATE CANCER TRENDSU01CA088160 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2000 to 2009
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA088160NCI NIH HHS U01 CA157224NCI NIH HHS U01CA157224NCI NIH HHS U01CA157224-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo quantify the extent to which a clinically significant prostate cancer mortality reduction due to screening could have been masked by control arm screening (contamination) in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial.

methodsWe used three independently developed models of prostate cancer natural history to conduct a virtual PLCO trial. Simulated participants underwent pre-trial screening based on population patterns. The intervention arm followed observed compliance during the trial then resumed population screening. A contaminated control arm followed observed contamination during the trial then resumed population screening, while an uncontaminated control arm discontinued screening upon entry. We assumed a clinically significant screening benefit, applied population treatments and survival patterns, and calculated mortality rate ratios relative to the contaminated and uncontaminated control arms.

resultsThe virtual trial reproduced observed incidence, including stage and grade distributions, and control arm mortality after 10 years of complete follow-up. Under the assumed screening benefit, the three models found that contamination increased the mortality rate ratio from 0.68-0.77 to 0.86-0.91, increased the chance of excess mortality in the intervention arm from 0-4 % to 15-28 %, and decreased the power of the trial to detect a mortality difference from 40-70 % to 9-25 %.

conclusionsOur computer simulation models indicate that contamination substantially limited the ability of the PLCO to identify a clinically significant screening benefit. While the trial shows annual screening does not reduce mortality relative to population screening, contamination prevents concluding whether screening reduces mortality relative to no screening.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOvarian NeoplasmsProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsSEER ProgramUnited StatesProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID22488488
PMCPMC3556907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.