Contact Us

  Skip Navigation Links
LeadershipExpand Leadership
About CARETExpand About CARET
Research & PublicationsExpand Research & Publications
Biorepository & DatabaseExpand Biorepository & Database
Requesting Specimens & DataExpand Requesting Specimens & Data
Links
 

  Skip Navigation LinksHome | Biorepository & Database | Endpoints

 
 
Links

Specimens

Endpoints

Data Collection Forms

Endpoints


Collection and adjudication
The endpoints review process has undergone several procedural modifications over the 20-year history of CARET. During the intervention phase and continuing through the first year of post-intervention follow-up (1985 – 1997), the procedure was as follows. We obtained medical records and pathology reports for all participants who reported a cancer diagnosis. We also requested slides or tissue blocks for lung, mesothelioma, and unknown primaries for central pathology review. Pathology reports were reviewed for all other cancers. Endpoint materials were reviewed independently by three reviewers from CARET’s Endpoints Review Committee (ERC). If there was disagreement among the reviewers as to the primary site, histology, or date of diagnosis, the case was reviewed and closed during a meeting of the ERC. Prior to 1995, tissue specimens were returned after central pathology review.

From March 1997 through September 1998, a streamlined endpoint review and closure process was followed. Three changes were implemented for this period: 1) a single reviewer adjudicated all cases independently, unless questions arose; 2) for all cancers other than lung cancer, only pathology reports were required to confirm the endpoint; and 3) only the death certificate was required to confirm cause of death. The process was further streamlined in October 1998, allowing for review by endpoint specialists from the CARET Coordinating Center staff and a single reviewer from the ERC.

The final change came in October 2003 when, as a cost-saving measure, we eliminated the collection and review of pathology reports and began relying solely on self-reports of cancer. Our decision to make this change was based on an evaluation of the accuracy of participant self-report of cancer, especially lung cancer, our primary endpoint. We examined the adjudication outcome of participant reported cancers and found that 91% of cases reported as lung cancer were closed as such. Most of the discrepancies in reporting were due to reporting recurrences or reporting metastases as new primaries. The confirmation rates were high for other commonly reported cancers as well, including prostate (96%), breast (94%), bladder (97%), and colorectal (88%). These findings assured us that self-report of cancer was an acceptable procedure. Based on this evaluation, we made several modifications to the data collection questionnaire to address the reasons for self-reported diagnoses with the review of medical records. In the majority of cases, this was concerned with differentiating a new primary cancer from recurrent, metastatic, and benign diseases. Thus, actual rates of agreement during the self-reporting period (October 2003 – June 2005) are likely higher than we observed in our evaluation.

Cancer Incidence and Mortality
 • Number of participants with cancer endpoints by cancer type and intervention arm assignment (PDF)

 • Number of deceased participants by cause of death and intervention arm assignment (PDF)

 

  Copyright 2007 by COMPASS, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   Site Map