More Efficient Smaller Multi-Cancer Screening Trials.

Peter Sasieni,Adam R Brentnall
{"title":"More Efficient Smaller Multi-Cancer Screening Trials.","authors":"Peter Sasieni,Adam R Brentnall","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThe NHS-Galleri trial has demonstrated feasibility for multi-cancer screening trial design where all participants provide a 'sample' for screening, but only samples from the intervention arm are tested and acted upon during the trial. We assess efficiency of analysis methods when the control arm may be retrospectively tested at time of analysis.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nAnalyses considered are: (1, traditional) by randomised allocation with all events included; (2, 'intended-effect') nested in those who tested positive in both arms and all events therein; and (3, targeted) by randomised allocation but with endpoint 'test-positive event'. They are compared using approximate statistical methods and scenario analysis.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nProvided the number who die from cancer after a test-positive sample is a small fraction of the total number who die from cancer, intended-effect and targeted analyses require a much smaller sample size to evaluate cancer-specific mortality than the traditional approach. Intended-effect analysis has a smaller sample size requirement than targeted analysis. This gain is only substantial when the risk of cancer death in test positives is high.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nIntended-effect or targeted analysis will substantially reduce the sample size needed to evaluate cancer-specific mortality in blood-based screening trials. Targeted analysis requires many fewer retrospective tests and avoids potential effects of needing to inform those whose stored samples test positive. Trialists should consider the trade-off of costs between sample size and retrospective testing requirements when choosing the analysis.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"481 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae251","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND The NHS-Galleri trial has demonstrated feasibility for multi-cancer screening trial design where all participants provide a 'sample' for screening, but only samples from the intervention arm are tested and acted upon during the trial. We assess efficiency of analysis methods when the control arm may be retrospectively tested at time of analysis. METHODS Analyses considered are: (1, traditional) by randomised allocation with all events included; (2, 'intended-effect') nested in those who tested positive in both arms and all events therein; and (3, targeted) by randomised allocation but with endpoint 'test-positive event'. They are compared using approximate statistical methods and scenario analysis. RESULTS Provided the number who die from cancer after a test-positive sample is a small fraction of the total number who die from cancer, intended-effect and targeted analyses require a much smaller sample size to evaluate cancer-specific mortality than the traditional approach. Intended-effect analysis has a smaller sample size requirement than targeted analysis. This gain is only substantial when the risk of cancer death in test positives is high. CONCLUSION Intended-effect or targeted analysis will substantially reduce the sample size needed to evaluate cancer-specific mortality in blood-based screening trials. Targeted analysis requires many fewer retrospective tests and avoids potential effects of needing to inform those whose stored samples test positive. Trialists should consider the trade-off of costs between sample size and retrospective testing requirements when choosing the analysis.
更高效的小型多癌症筛查试验。
背景NHS-Galleri试验证明了多癌症筛查试验设计的可行性,即所有参与者都提供 "样本 "进行筛查,但在试验期间只对干预组的样本进行检测并采取行动。我们对分析时可能对对照组进行回顾性检测的分析方法的效率进行了评估:(1,传统分析)采用随机分配法,包括所有事件;(2,"预期效果 "分析)嵌套于两臂中检测呈阳性者及其所有事件;(3,目标分析)采用随机分配法,但终点为 "检测呈阳性事件"。结果如果检测呈阳性的样本中死于癌症的人数只占癌症死亡总人数的一小部分,那么与传统方法相比,预期效果分析和靶向分析需要更少的样本量来评估癌症特异性死亡率。预期效应分析所需的样本量小于目标分析。结论预期效果分析或针对性分析将大大减少血液筛查试验中评估癌症特异性死亡率所需的样本量。有针对性的分析需要减少许多回顾性检测,并避免了因需要通知那些储存样本检测呈阳性的人而产生的潜在影响。试验人员在选择分析方法时应考虑样本量与回顾性检测要求之间的成本权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信