Literature DB >> 20597136

Healthcare use after screening for lung cancer.

Margaret M Byrne1, Tulay Koru-Sengul, Wei Zhao, Joel L Weissfeld, Mark S Roberts.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the benefits of lung cancer screening, all effects of screening need to be considered. The aim of this study was to determine whether screening had an effect on healthcare use, specifically whether use increased for those with a false-positive or indeterminate screening result.
METHODS: Recruited were 400 individuals participating in a lung cancer screening study at the University of Pittsburgh. Self-reported outpatient healthcare use information was collected for the 6 months before, 0 to 6 months after, and 6 to 12 months after screening. The screening outcomes were negative, indeterminate, and suspicious. Repeated-measures Poisson regression models were used to examine changes in use over time and how changes over time varied among the screening outcome groups.
RESULTS: Approximately 58% of participants had a negative screening result, 36% had an indeterminate result, and approximately 6% had a suspicious result. The percentage of individuals who had any incidence of each type of outpatient use increased after screening, with the greatest increase noted for those with a suspicious screening result. Adjusted mean use significantly increased for nearly all types of use and for all 3 screening results categories in the 6 months after screening, but mostly declined to prescreening levels in the next 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient healthcare use was found to increase after screening for all individuals who were screened for lung cancer, regardless of the screening finding. The cost of the lung-related visits alone was substantial. Therefore, if lung cancer screening prevalence is increased, attendant follow-up healthcare costs are also likely to increase.
© 2010 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20597136      PMCID: PMC3062436          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25466

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  41 in total

Review 1.  Screening mammography for early detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  M Primic-Zakelj
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 2.  Screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  E F Patz; P C Goodman; G Bepler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-11-30       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Overdiagnosis: An underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening.

Authors:  W C Black
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-08-16       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Do follow-up recommendations for abnormal Papanicolaou smears influence patient adherence?

Authors:  J Melnikow; B K Chan; G K Stewart
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec

Review 5.  Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing: a systematic review.

Authors:  M Broadstock; S Michie; T Marteau
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Psychological impact of screening for familial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  F J Wardle; W Collins; A L Pernet; M I Whitehead; T H Bourne; S Campbell
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-04-21       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  The psychological consequences of predictive testing for Huntington's disease. Canadian Collaborative Study of Predictive Testing.

Authors:  S Wiggins; P Whyte; M Huggins; S Adam; J Theilmann; M Bloch; S B Sheps; M T Schechter; M R Hayden
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-11-12       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Adverse psychologic consequences of positive cytologic cervical screening.

Authors:  C Lerman; S M Miller; R Scarborough; P Hanjani; S Nolte; D Smith
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  The psychological effects of breast screening in terms of patients' perceived health anxieties.

Authors:  V Swanson; I B McIntosh; K G Power; H Dobson
Journal:  Br J Clin Pract       Date:  1996 Apr-May

10.  Cost of a 5-year lung cancer survivor: symptomatic tumour identification vs proactive computed tomography screening.

Authors:  A W Castleberry; D Smith; C Anderson; A J Rotter; F W Grannis
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a review of current status.

Authors:  Henry M Marshall; Rayleen V Bowman; Ian A Yang; Kwun M Fong; Christine D Berg
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Primary care visit use after positive fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Christopher D Jensen; Wei K Zhao; Alfred I Neugut; Benjamin Lebwohl; Jasmin A Tiro; Lawrence H Kushi; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Age and Smoking Status Affect Serum Cytokeratin 19 Fragment Levels in Individuals Without Cancer.

Authors:  Asami Minamibata; Yoshihito Kono; Taichiro Arimoto; Yoshinori Marunaka; Koichi Takayama
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2022 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 4.  [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chun-Ru Chien; Ji-An Liang; Jin-Hua Chen; Hsiao-Nin Wang; Cheng-Chieh Lin; Chih-Yi Chen; Pin-Hui Wang; Chia-Hung Kao; Jun-Jun Yeh
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2013-12-14       Impact factor: 3.909

5.  A randomized wait-list controlled trial of a social support intervention for caregivers of patients with primary malignant brain tumor.

Authors:  Maija Reblin; Dana Ketcher; Rachael McCormick; Veronica Barrios-Monroy; Steven K Sutton; Bradley Zebrack; Kristen J Wells; Solmaz Sahebjam; Peter Forsyth; Margaret M Byrne
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-04-17       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.