Effects of joint screening for prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer – results from a controlled trial

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough screening is widely used to reduce cancer burden, untargeted cancers are frequently missed after single cancer screening. Joint cancer screening is presumed as a more effective strategy to reduce overall cancer burden.MethodsGender-specific screening effects on PLCO cancer incidence, PLCO cancer mortality, all-neoplasms mortality and all-cause mortality were evaluated, and meta-analyses based on gender-specific screening effects were conducted to achieve the pooled effects. The cut-off value of time-dependent receiver-operating-characteristic curve of 10-year combined PLCO cancer risk was used to reclassify participants into low- and high-risk subgroups. Further analyses were conducted to investigate screening effects stratified by risk groups and screening compliance.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 10.48 years for incidence and 16.85 years for mortality, a total of 5,506 PLCO cancer cases, 1,845 PLCO cancer deaths, 3,970 all-neoplasms deaths, and 14,221 all-cause deaths were documented in the screening arm, while 6,261, 2,417, 5,091, and 18,516 outcome-specific events in the control arm. Joint cancer screening did not significantly reduce PLCO cancer incidence, but significantly reduced male-specific PLCO cancer mortality (hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals [HR(95%CIs)]: 0.88(0.82, 0.95)) and pooled mortality [0.89(0.84, 0.95)]. More importantly, joint cancer screening significantly reduced both gender-specific all-neoplasm mortality [0.91(0.86, 0.96) for males, 0.91(0.85, 0.98) for females, and 0.91(0.87, 0.95) for meta-analyses] and all-cause mortality [0.90(0.88, 0.93) for male, 0.88(0.85, 0.92) for female, and 0.89(0.87, 0.91) for meta-analyses]. Further analyses showed decreased risks of all-neoplasm mortality was observed with good compliance [0.72(0.67, 0.77) for male and 0.72(0.65, 0.80) for female] and increased risks with poor compliance [1.61(1.40, 1.85) for male and 1.30(1.13, 1.40) for female].ConclusionJoint cancer screening could be recommended as a potentially strategy to reduce the overall cancer burden. More compliance, more benefits. However, organizing a joint cancer screening not only requires more ingenious design, but also needs more attentions to the potential harms.Trial registrationNCT00002540 (Prostate), NCT01696968 (Lung), NCT01696981 (Colorectal), NCT01696994 (Ovarian).