Risk-Based Selection of Individuals for Oral Cancer Screening
Li C Cheung, Kunnambath Ramadas, Richard Muwonge, Hormuzd A Katki, Gigi Thomas, Barry I Graubard, Partha Basu, Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, Thara Somanathan, Anil K Chaturvedi, Li C Cheung, Kunnambath Ramadas, Richard Muwonge, Hormuzd A Katki, Gigi Thomas, Barry I Graubard, Partha Basu, Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, Thara Somanathan, Anil K Chaturvedi
Abstract
Purpose: We evaluated proof of principle for resource-efficient, risk-based screening through reanalysis of the Kerala Oral Cancer Screening Trial.
Methods: The cluster-randomized trial included three triennial rounds of visual inspection (seven clusters, n = 96,516) versus standard of care (six clusters, n = 95,354) and up to 9 years of follow-up. We developed a Cox regression-based risk prediction model for oral cancer incidence. Using this risk prediction model to adjust for the oral cancer risk imbalance between arms, through intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses that accounted for cluster randomization, we calculated the relative (hazard ratios [HRs]) and absolute (rate differences [RDs]) screening efficacy on oral cancer mortality and compared screening efficiency across risk thresholds.
Results: Oral cancer mortality was reduced by 27% in the screening versus control arms (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98), including a 29% reduction in ever-tobacco and/or ever-alcohol users (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.99). This relative efficacy was similar across oral cancer risk quartiles (P interaction = .59); consequently, the absolute efficacy increased with increasing model-predicted risk-overall trial: RD in the lowest risk quartile (Q1) = 0.5/100,000 versus 13.4/100,000 in the highest quartile (Q4), P trend = .059 and ever-tobacco and/or ever-alcohol users: Q1 RD = 1.0/100,000 versus Q4 = 22.5/100,000; P trend = .026. In a population akin to the Kerala trial, screening of 100% of individuals would provide 27.1% oral cancer mortality reduction at number needed to screen (NNS) = 2,043. Restriction of screening to ever-tobacco and/or ever-alcohol users with no additional risk stratification would substantially enhance efficiency (43.4% screened for 23.3% oral cancer mortality reduction at NNS = 1,029), whereas risk prediction model-based screening of 50% of ever-tobacco and/or ever-alcohol users at highest risk would further enhance efficiency with little loss in program sensitivity (21.7% screened for 19.7% oral cancer mortality reduction at NNS = 610).
Conclusion: In the Kerala trial, the efficacy of oral cancer screening was greatest in individuals at highest oral cancer risk. These results provide proof of principle that risk-based oral cancer screening could substantially enhance the efficiency of screening programs.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04494620.
Figures
References
- Shield KD, Ferlay J, Jemal A, et al. The global incidence of lip, oral cavity, and pharyngeal cancers by subsite in 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:51–64.
- Sankaranarayanan R, Ramadas K, Amarasinghe H, et al. Oral cancer: Prevention, early detection, and treatment. In: Gelband H, Jha P, Sankaranarayanan R, et al., editors. Cancer: Disease Control Priorities. ed 3. Volume 3. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2015.
- Sankaranarayanan R, Ramadas K, Thomas G, et al. Effect of screening on oral cancer mortality in Kerala, India: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1927–1933.
- Ramadas K, Sankaranarayanan R, Jacob BJ, et al. Interim results from a cluster randomized controlled oral cancer screening trial in Kerala, India. Oral Oncol. 2003;39:580–588.
- Sankaranarayanan R, Ramadas K, Thara S, et al. Long term effect of visual screening on oral cancer incidence and mortality in a randomized trial in Kerala, India. Oral Oncol. 2013;49:314–321.
- Sankaranarayanan R, Mathew B, Jacob BJ, et al. Early findings from a community-based, cluster-randomized, controlled oral cancer screening trial in Kerala, India. The Trivandrum Oral Cancer Screening Study Group. Cancer. 2000;88:664–673.
- Mathew B, Sankaranarayanan R, Sunilkumar KB, et al. Reproducibility and validity of oral visual inspection by trained health workers in the detection of oral precancer and cancer. Br J Cancer. 1997;76:390–394.
- Harrell FE, Jr, Califf RM, Pryor DB, et al. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA. 1982;247:2543–2546.
- Harrell FE, Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–387.
- Flegal KM, Graubard BI, Williamson DF, et al. Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. JAMA. 2005;293:1861–1867.
- Korn EL, Graubard BI. Analysis of Health Surveys: Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
- Brocklehurst P, Kujan O, Glenny AM, et al. Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD004150.
- Kujan O, Glenny AM, Oliver RJ, et al. Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD004150.
- Moyer VA, US Preventive Services Task Force Screening for oral cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:55–60.
- Ramadas K, Arrossi S, Thara S, et al. Keynote comment: Importance of recognising scientific evidence. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:962–963.
- Mignogna MD, Fedele S. Oral cancer screening: 5 minutes to save a life. Lancet. 2005;365:1905–1906.
- Bagcchi S. India launches plan for national cancer screening programme. BMJ. 2016;355:i5574.
- Rajaraman P, Anderson BO, Basu P, et al. Recommendations for screening and early detection of common cancers in India. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:e352–361.
- Global Adult Tobacco Survey Datasets for South-East Asian (SEAR) Region, India, India-National.
Source: PubMed