O173 Oral visual screening reduces oral cancer mortality: evidence from a randomised trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
R. Sankaranarayanan ◽  
K. Ramadas ◽  
G. Thomas ◽  
R. Muwonge ◽  
S. Thara ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 663-674
Author(s):  
Li C. Cheung ◽  
Kunnambath Ramadas ◽  
Richard Muwonge ◽  
Hormuzd A. Katki ◽  
Gigi Thomas ◽  
...  

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.


Cancer ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 123 (9) ◽  
pp. 1597-1609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shu-Lin Chuang ◽  
William Wang-Yu Su ◽  
Sam Li-Sheng Chen ◽  
Amy Ming-Fang Yen ◽  
Cheng-Ping Wang ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 15 ◽  
pp. 1419-1425
Author(s):  
Yifeng Qian ◽  
Huiting Yu ◽  
Weijun Yuan ◽  
Jiaqing Wu ◽  
Qingyu Xu ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omar Kujan ◽  
Anne-Marie Glenny ◽  
John Duxbury ◽  
Nalin Thakker ◽  
Philip Sloan

2019 ◽  
Vol 121 (10) ◽  
pp. 827-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain L. Hutchison ◽  
Fran Ridout ◽  
Sharon M. Y. Cheung ◽  
Neil Shah ◽  
Peter Hardee ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Guidelines remain unclear over whether patients with early stage oral cancer without overt neck disease benefit from upfront elective neck dissection (END), particularly those with the smallest tumours. Methods We conducted a randomised trial of patients with stage T1/T2 N0 disease, who had their mouth tumour resected either with or without END. Data were also collected from a concurrent cohort of patients who had their preferred surgery. Endpoints included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). We conducted a meta-analysis of all six randomised trials. Results Two hundred fifty randomised and 346 observational cohort patients were studied (27 hospitals). Occult neck disease was found in 19.1% (T1) and 34.7% (T2) patients respectively. Five-year intention-to-treat hazard ratios (HR) were: OS HR = 0.71 (p = 0.18), and DFS HR = 0.66 (p = 0.04). Corresponding per-protocol results were: OS HR = 0.59 (p = 0.054), and DFS HR = 0.56 (p = 0.007). END was effective for small tumours. END patients experienced more facial/neck nerve damage; QoL was largely unaffected. The observational cohort supported the randomised findings. The meta-analysis produced HR OS 0.64 and DFS 0.54 (p < 0.001). Conclusion SEND and the cumulative evidence show that within a generalisable setting oral cancer patients who have an upfront END have a lower risk of death/recurrence, even with small tumours. Clinical Trial Registration NIHR UK Clinical Research Network database ID number: UKCRN 2069 (registered on 17/02/2006), ISCRTN number: 65018995, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00571883.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document