Literature DB >> 15525861

False-positive cancer screens and health-related quality of life.

Patricia M McGovern1, Cynthia R Gross, Richard A Krueger, Deborah A Engelhard, Jill E Cordes, Timothy R Church.   

Abstract

By design, screening tests are imperfect-unresponsive to some cancers (false negatives) while occasionally raising suspicion of cancer where none exists (false positives). This pilot study describes patients' responses to having a false-positive screening test for cancer, and identifies screening effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The pilot findings suggest issues important for incorporation in future evaluations of the impact of screening for prostate, lung, colon, or ovarian (PLCO) cancers. Seven focus groups were conducted to identify the nature and meaning of all phases of PLCO screening. Minnesota participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial who had completed screening, with at least 1 false-positive screen, participated (N = 47). Participants' reactions to abnormal screens and diagnostic work-ups were primarily emotional (eg, anxiety and distress), not physical, and ultimately positive for the majority. Health distress and fear of cancer and death were the major negative aspects of HRQoL identified. These concepts are not typically included in generic HRQoL questionnaires like the SF-36, but are highly relevant to PLCO screening. Clinicians were regarded as underestimating the discomfort of follow-up diagnostic testing. However, relief and assurance appeared to eventually outweigh the negative emotions for most participants. Implications for oncology nurses include the need to consider the emotional consequences of screening in association with screen reliability and validity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15525861     DOI: 10.1097/00002820-200409000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Nurs        ISSN: 0162-220X            Impact factor:   2.592


  11 in total

1.  A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants.

Authors:  Elyse R Park; Joanna M Streck; Ilana F Gareen; Jamie S Ostroff; Kelly A Hyland; Nancy A Rigotti; Hannah Pajolek; Mark Nichter
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 4.244

2.  Psychological impact of serial prostate-specific antigen tests in Japanese men waiting for prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Minoru Kobayashi; Akinori Nukui; Takao Kamai
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Demographic, clinical, dispositional, and social-environmental characteristics associated with psychological response to a false positive ovarian cancer screening test: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-10-25

4.  Health perceptions in patients who undergo screening and workup for prostate cancer.

Authors:  David A Katz; David F Jarrard; Colleen A McHorney; Stephen L Hillis; Donald A Wiebe; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Harms of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance.

Authors:  Jan Petrasek; Amit G Singal; Nicole E Rich
Journal:  Curr Hepatol Rep       Date:  2019-10-15

6.  18 F-FDG positron emission tomography-computed tomography has a low positive predictive value for detecting occult recurrence in asymptomatic patients with high-risk Stages IIB, IIC, and IIIA melanoma.

Authors:  Zachary J Jaeger; Gregory A Williams; Ling Chen; Joyce C Mhlanga; Lynn A Cornelius; Ryan C Fields
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-11-06       Impact factor: 3.454

7.  Affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes associated with a false positive ovarian cancer screening test result.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-04-21

8.  Impact of lung cancer screening results on participant health-related quality of life and state anxiety in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  Ilana F Gareen; Fenghai Duan; Erin M Greco; Bradley S Snyder; Phillip M Boiselle; Elyse R Park; Dennis Fryback; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Ovarian cancer screening practices of obstetricians and gynecologists in puerto rico.

Authors:  Gianni Rodríguez-Ayala; Josefina Romaguera; Mariel López; Ana P Ortiz
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-06-05       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  Men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

Authors:  Laura J James; Germaine Wong; Jonathan C Craig; Camilla S Hanson; Angela Ju; Kirsten Howard; Tim Usherwood; Howard Lau; Allison Tong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.