This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Strauss, G. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Strauss, G. M. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

The Mayo Lung Cohort: A Regression Analysis Focusing on Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality

From the Division of Hematology-Oncology, Roger Williams Medical Center, Providence, RI; and Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.

Address reprint requests to Gary M. Strauss, MD, MPH, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Roger Williams Medical Center, 825 Chalkstone Ave, Providence, RI 02908; email: gstrauss{at}ids.net

PURPOSE: The Mayo Lung Project has been interpreted as negative because it failed to demonstrate a significant mortality reduction among those randomized to chest x-ray and cytology. In contrast, survival suggests that screening is highly effective. This report was undertaken to analyze the trial as a closed cohort study, in an effort to identify predictors of lung cancer incidence and mortality, and to determine whether survival or mortality was unbiased.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Mayo Lung Cohort comprised all 9,192 randomized individuals. Cox proportional hazards regression was used both to determine predictors of incidence and mortality in the population and to identify predictors of mortality among cases. Survival analyses using intent-to-treat principles and measuring survival from randomization were used to evaluate length bias and lead-time bias. Multivariate Cox regression was used to investigate the extent to which the data are consistent with overdiagnosis.

RESULTS: Cox regression demonstrates that, in addition to age and smoking, randomization to screening predicted increased lung cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.60). Predictors of mortality were similar, except randomization to screening was not significant (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.37). Among cases, survival was significantly superior in the experimental population. Higher incidence in the experimental group accounts for the mortality/survival discrepancy. Both lead-time and length biases can be excluded, because survival from randomization was superior in the experimental population. Overdiagnosis is eliminated because resection was the only significant multivariate predictor of survival. Overall, 50% of resected and 0% of unresected cases were cured.

CONCLUSION: Survival was superior in the screened population, and this advantage was not attributable to lead-time bias, length bias, or overdiagnosis bias. Mortality was biased, because incidence differences confounded the ability of mortality to reflect the true effect of screening. Indeed, survival provided an unbiased surrogate for cure in the Mayo Lung Cohort.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. M. Marcus, E. J. Bergstralh, M. H. Zweig, A. Harris, K. P. Offord, and R. S. Fontana Extended lung cancer incidence follow-up in the Mayo Lung Project and overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst, June 7, 2006; 98(11): 748 - 756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A Imperatori, R N Harrison, D N Leitch, F Rovera, G Lepore, G Dionigi, P Sutton, and L Dominioni Lung cancer in Teesside (UK) and Varese (Italy): a comparison of management and survival Thorax, March 1, 2006; 61(3): 232 - 239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. M. Strauss, L. Dominioni, J. R. Jett, M. Freedman, and F. W. Grannis Jr Como International Conference Position Statement: Lung Cancer Screening for Early Diagnosis 5 Years After The 1998 Varese Conference Chest, April 1, 2005; 127(4): 1146 - 1151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. J. Elfenbein Stem-Cell Transplantation for High-Risk Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., July 3, 2003; 349(1): 80 - 82. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Potti, N. Moazzam, K. Ramar, D. S. Hanekom, S. Kargas, and M. Koch CD117 (c-KIT) overexpression in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung carcinoma Ann. Onc., June 1, 2003; 14(6): 894 - 897. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. G. Spiro and J. C. Porter Lung Cancer--Where Are We Today?: Current Advances in Staging and Nonsurgical Treatment Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., November 1, 2002; 166(9): 1166 - 1196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Hakama and G. M. Strauss Screening for Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., September 15, 2002; 20(18): 3931 - 3934. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Jett Screening for Lung Cancer: No Longer a Taboo Subject J. Clin. Oncol., April 15, 2002; 20(8): 1959 - 1961. [Full Text] [PDF]