Potential of Computer-Aided Diagnosis to Improve CT Lung Cancer Screening

The development of low-dose spiral computed tomography (CT) has rekindled hope that effective lung cancer screening might yet be found. Screening is justified when there is evidence that it will extend lives at reasonable cost and acceptable levels of risk. A screening test should detect all extant cancers while avoiding unnecessary workups. Thus optimal screening modalities have both high sensitivity and specificity. Due to the present state of technology, radiologists must opt to increase sensitivity and rely on follow-up diagnostic procedures to rule out the incurred false positives. There is evidence in published reports that computer-aided diagnosis technology may help radiologists alter the benefit-cost calculus of CT sensitivity and specificity in lung cancer screening protocols. This review will provide insight into the current discussion of the effectiveness of lung cancer screening and assesses the potential of state-of-the-art computer-aided design developments

A review of imaging techniques for systems biology

This paper presents a review of imaging techniques and of their utility in system biology. During the last decade systems biology has matured into a distinct field and imaging has been increasingly used to enable the interplay of experimental and theoretical biology. In this review, we describe and compare the roles of microscopy, ultrasound, CT (Computed Tomography), MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), PET (Positron Emission Tomography), and molecular probes such as quantum dots and nanoshells in systems biology. As a unified application area among these different imaging techniques, examples in cancer targeting are highlighted

Characterizing Genetic Risk at Known Prostate Cancer Susceptibility Loci in African Americans

GWAS of prostate cancer have been remarkably successful in revealing common genetic variants and novel biological pathways that are linked with its etiology. A more complete understanding of inherited susceptibility to prostate cancer in the general population will come from continuing such discovery efforts and from testing known risk alleles in diverse racial and ethnic groups. In this large study of prostate cancer in African American men (3,425 prostate cancer cases and 3,290 controls), we tested 49 risk variants located in 28 genomic regions identified through GWAS in men of European and Asian descent, and we replicated associations (at p≤0.05) with roughly half of these markers. Through fine-mapping, we identified nearby markers in many regions that better define associations in African Americans. At 8q24, we found 9 variants (p≤6×10−4) that best capture risk of prostate cancer in African Americans, many of which are more common in men of African than European descent. The markers found to be associated with risk at each locus improved risk modeling in African Americans (per allele OR = 1.17) over the alleles reported in the original GWAS (OR = 1.08). In summary, in this detailed analysis of the prostate cancer risk loci reported from GWAS, we have validated and improved upon markers of risk in some regions that better define the association with prostate cancer in African Americans. Our findings with variants at 8q24 also reinforce the importance of this region as a major risk locus for prostate cancer in men of African ancestry

Multilevel modeling and value of information in clinical trial decision support

Background Clinical trials are the main method for evaluating safety and efficacy of medical interventions and have produced many advances in improving human health. The Women's Health Initiative overturned a half-century of harmful practice in hormone therapy, the National Lung Screening Trial identified the first successful lung cancer screening tool and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial overturned decades-long assumptions. While some trials identify unforeseen safety issues or harms, many fail to demonstrate efficacy. Large trials require substantial resources; to ensure reliable outcomes, we must seek ways to improve the predictive information used as the basis of trials. Results Here we demonstrate a modeling framework for linking knowledge of underlying biological mechanism to evaluate the expectation of trial outcomes. Key features include the ability to propagate uncertainty in biological mechanism to uncertainty in trial outcome and mechanisms for identifying knowledge gaps most responsible for unexpected outcomes. The framework was used to model the effect of selenium supplementation for prostate cancer prevention and parallels the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial that showed no efficacy despite suggestive data from secondary endpoints in the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer trial and found increased incidence of high-grade prostate cancer in certain subgroups. Conclusion Using machine learning methods, we identified the parameters of the model that are most predictive of trial outcome and found that the top four are directly related to the rates of reactions producing methylselenol and transporting extracellular selenium into the cell as selenide. This modeling process demonstrates how the approach can be used in advance of a large clinical trial to identify the best targets for conducting further research to reduce the uncertainty in the trial outcome.National Institutes of Health (U.S.). Office of Disease PreventionNational Institutes of Health (U.S.). Office of Dietary SupplementsEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.

Managing Multi-Center Recruitment in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial

There were significant recruitment challenges specific to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Large numbers of participants were to be randomized from ten catchment areas nationwide within time and budgetary constraints. The eligible population was elderly and had to meet health and behavioral thresholds. Informed consent was required to participate and be randomized to screening for three cancers at periodic clinic visits or to a usual care arm that included no clinical visits. Consenting required special efforts to fully explain the trial and its potential scientific benefit to future patients with potentially no benefits but possible harms to PLCO participants. Participation would include continued follow-up for at least 13 years after randomization. Strong collaborative investments were required by the NCI and screening centers (SCs) to assure timely recruitment and appropriate racial participation. A trial-wide pilot phase tested recruitment and protocol follow through at SCs and produced a vanguard population of 11,406 participants. NCI announced the trial nationally in advance of the pilot and followed with an even more intense collaborative role with SCs for the main phase to facilitate trial-wide efficient and timely recruitment. Special efforts to enhance recruitment in the main phase included centralized and local monitoring of progress, cross-linking SCs to share experiences in problem solving, centralized training, substantial additional funding dedicated to recruitment and retention, including specialized programs for minority recruitment, obtaining national endorsement by the American Cancer Society, launching satellite recruitment and screening centers, including minority focused satellites, and adding a new SC dedicated to minority recruitment

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 I 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 II 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

Cumulative Incidence of False-Positive Results in Repeated, Multimodal Cancer Screening

PURPOSE Multiple cancer screening tests have been advocated for the general population; however, clinicians and patients are not always well-informed of screening burdens. We sought to determine the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result and the resulting risk of a diagnostic procedure for an individual participating in a multimodal cancer screening program