Biomedical subjects

Philip C Prorok

Publications and source records attributed to Philip C Prorok.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Modelling and analysing exchangeable binary data with random cluster sizes.

Correlated binary data occur very frequently in cluster sample surveys, dependent repeated cancer screening, teratological experiments, ophthalmologic and otolaryngologic studies, and other clinical trials. The standard methods to analyse these data include the use of beta-binomial models and generalized estimating equations with third and fourth moments specified by 'working matrices'. However, in many applications it is reasonable to assume that the data from the same cluster are exchangeable. When all sampled clusters have equal sizes, Bowman and George introduced maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of the population parameters such as the marginal means, moments, and correlations of order two and higher. They also extended their approach to sampled clusters with unequal sizes. It seems that their extension has a gap. This paper points out the source of this gap and shows that estimates introduced by Bowman and George are not the MLEs of the parameters which are used to identify the joint distribution of correlated binary data. We show that the MLEs of the population parameters have no closed form in general and should be calculated by numerical methods. We apply our results and a generalized estimating equation procedure to a data set from a double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing two antibiotics, cefaclor and amoxicillin, used for the treatment of acute otitis media. To see the performance of the MLEs with small or moderate sample sizes, several simulation studies are also conducted.

Amoxicillin↗

PubMed2003

Using observational data to estimate an upper bound on the reduction in cancer mortality due to periodic screening.

BACKGROUND: Because randomized cancer screening trials are very expensive, observational cancer screening studies can play an important role in the early phases of screening evaluation. Periodic screening evaluation (PSE) is a methodology for estimating the reduction in population cancer mortality from data on subjects who receive regularly scheduled screens. Although PSE does not require assumptions about natural history of cancer it requires other assumptions, particularly progressive detection - the assumption that once a cancer is detected by a screening test, it will always be detected by the screening test. METHODS: We formulate a simple version of PSE and show that it leads to an upper bound on screening efficacy if the progressive detection assumption does not hold (and any effect of birth cohort is minimal) To determine if the upper bound is reasonable, for three randomized screening trials, we compared PSE estimates based only on screened subjects with PSE estimates based on all subjects. RESULTS: In the three randomized screening trials, PSE estimates based on screened subjects gave fairly close results to PSE estimates based on all subjects. CONCLUSION: PSE has promise for obtaining an upper bound on the reduction in population cancer mortality rates based on observational screening data. If the upper bound estimate is found to be small and any birth cohort effects are likely minimal, then a definitive randomized trial would not be warranted.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2003

Alternative definitions of comparable case groups and estimates of lead time and benefit time in randomized cancer screening trials.

Randomized screening trials provide the optimal means of assessing the benefit of screening for cancer and other chronic diseases. Unlike therapy trials, however, where strict eligibility criteria assure the comparability of cases of disease in the arms of the trial, the cancer cases identified during follow-up are a subset of all randomized participants. Furthermore, those cases detected by screening tend to arise from length biased sampling which also can bias estimates of the screening benefit and of average lead time. To reduce or eliminate this bias, we propose several methods for defining comparable groups of cases from the trial arms. We examine, via simulation, these methods with respect to their effects on (i). point and interval estimates of average lead time and average benefit time and (ii). the logrank test statistic for a mortality effect of screening. The most successful new method for defining comparable case groups uses an estimate of the mean sojourn time (mean preclinical duration), and results in nearly unbiased estimates of average lead time and average benefit time as well as an unbiased logrank test statistic.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Statistical issues in randomized trials of cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of randomized trials for cancer screening involves special statistical considerations not found in therapeutic trials. Although some of these issues have been discussed previously, we present important recent and new methodologies. METHODS: Our emphasis is on simple approaches. RESULTS: We make the following recommendations: (1) Use death from cancer as the primary endpoint, but review death records carefully and report all causes of death; (2) Use a simple "causal" estimate to adjust for nonattendance and contamination occurring immediately after randomization; (3) Use a simple adaptive estimate to adjust for dilution in follow-up after the last screen CONCLUSION: The proposed guidelines combine recent methodological work on screening endpoints and noncompliance/contamination with a new adaptive method to adjust for dilution in a study where follow-up continues after the last screen. These guidelines ensure good practice in the design and analysis of randomized trials of cancer screening.

Endpoint Determination↗

PubMed2002

Adherence to repeat screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acceptance of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy has been poor, in part because of providers' concerns regarding the acceptability of the procedure. In the current prospective study, the authors used adherence to repeat testing to assess the acceptability of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: The current study was a prospective study of a randomized clinical trial drawing volunteers from the community. Subjects included 10,164 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial participants who were available for follow-up 3 years after undergoing a baseline screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examination. The authors measured adherence and identified those factors that appeared to affect adherence to repeat sigmoidoscopy. RESULTS: Overall, 18.3% of women and 10.0% of men did not undergo a repeat sigmoidoscopy. Among individuals who attended the Year-3 clinic, 10.4% of women and 5.1% of men specifically refused repeat sigmoidoscopy when it was offered (risk of refusal in women compared with men, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.76-2.36). Another factor found to be associated with refusal included a technically inadequate baseline sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Gender and past experiences with sigmoidoscopy may impact adherence to repeat screening. Nonetheless, among research volunteers in a randomized clinical trial of screening, excellent adherence to repeat screening flexible sigmoidoscopy could be achieved.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Large-scale randomized prostate cancer screening trials: program performances in the European Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer trial and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary cancer trial.

Two large-scale randomized screening trials, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary (PLCO) cancer trial in the USA and the European Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial in Europe are currently under way, aimed at assessing whether screening reduces prostate cancer mortality. Up to the end of 1998, 102,691 men have been randomized to the intervention arm and 115,322 to the control arm (which represents 83% of the target sample size) from 7 European countries and 10 screening centers in the USA. The principal screening method at all centers is determination of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The PLCO trial and some European centers use also digital rectal examination (DRE) as an ancillary screening test. In the core age group (55-69 years), 3,362 of 32,486 men screened (10%) had a serum PSA concentration of 4 ng/ml or greater, which is 1 cut-off for biopsy (performed in 84%). An additional 6% was referred for further assessment based on other criteria, with much less efficiency. Differences in PSA by country are largely attributable to the age structure of the study population. The mean age-specific PSA levels are lower in the PLCO trial (1.64 ng/ml [in the age group 55-59 years], 1.80 [60-64 years] and 2.18 [65-69 years) than in the ERSPC trial (1.28-1.71 [55-59], 1.75-2.87 [60-64] and 2.48-3.06 [65-69 years]). Detection rates at the first screen in the ERSPC trial range from 11 to 42/1,000 men screened and reflect underlying differences in incidence rates and screening procedures. In centers with consent to randomization design, adherence in the screening arm is 91%, but less than half of the men in the target population are enrolled in the trial. In population-based centers in which men were randomized prior to consent, all eligible subjects are enrolled, but only about two-thirds of the men in the intervention arm undergo screening. Considerable progress has been made in both trials. Enrollment will be completed in 2001. A substantial number of early prostate cancers have been detected. The differences between countries seem to reflect both underlying prostate cancer incidence and screening policy. The trials have the power to show definitive results in 2005-2008.

Aged↗