Literature DB >> 21102407

Surveillance of screening-detected cancers (colon and rectum, breast, and cervix) - United States, 2004-2006.

S Jane Henley1, Jessica B King, Robert R German, Lisa C Richardson, Marcus Plescia.   

Abstract

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Population-based screening is conducted to detect diseases or other conditions in persons before symptoms appear; effective screening leads to early detection and treatment, thereby reducing disease-associated morbidity and mortality. Based on systematic reviews of the evidence of the benefits and harms and assessments of the net benefit of screening, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends population-based screening for colon and rectum cancer, female breast cancer, and uterine cervix cancer. Few publications have used national data to examine the stage at diagnosis of these screening-amenable cancers. REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: 2004-2006. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS: Data were obtained from cancer registries affiliated with CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Combined data from the NPCR and SEER programs provide the best source of information on national population-based cancer incidence. Data on cancer screening were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. This report provides stage-specific cancer incidence rates and screening prevalence by demographic characteristics and U.S. state.
RESULTS: Approximately half of colorectal and cervical cancer cases and one third of breast cancer cases were diagnosed at a late stage of disease. Incidence rates of late-stage cancer differed by age, race/ethnicity, and state. Incidence rates of late-stage colorectal cancer increased with age and were highest among black men and women. Incidence rates of late-stage breast cancer were highest among women aged 60-79 years and black women. Incidence rates of late-stage cervical cancer were highest among women aged 50-79 years and Hispanic women. The percentage of persons who received recommended screening differed by age, race/ethnicity, and state.
INTERPRETATION: Differences in late-stage cancer incidence rates might be explained partially by differences in screening use. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION: The findings in this report emphasize the need for ongoing population-based surveillance and reporting to monitor late-stage cancer incidence trends. Screening can identify colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers in earlier and more treatable stages of disease. Multiple factors, including individual characteristics and health behaviors as well as provider and clinical systems factors, might account for why certain populations are underscreened. Cancer control planners, including comprehensive cancer-control programs, can use late-stage cancer incidence and screening prevalence data to identify populations that would benefit from interventions to increase screening utilization and to monitor performance of early detection programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21102407

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ        ISSN: 1545-8636


  50 in total

1.  Distinguishing factors for asymptomatic colonoscopy screening.

Authors:  Corey H Basch; Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Patricia Zybert
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Breast and cervical cancers diagnosed and stage at diagnosis among women served through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  Jacqueline W Miller; Janet Royalty; Jane Henley; Arica White; Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 2.506

3.  Regional differences and tribal use of American Indian/Alaska Native cancer data in the Pacific Northwest.

Authors:  Megan J Hoopes; Paneen Petersen; Eric Vinson; Kerri Lopez
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Improving cancer outcomes: better access to diagnostics in primary care could be critical.

Authors:  Greg Rubin; Peter Vedsted; Jon Emery
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Lung cancer deaths among American Indians and Alaska Natives, 1990-2009.

Authors:  Marcus Plescia; Sarah Jane Henley; Anne Pate; J Michael Underwood; Kris Rhodes
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Commentary: eight ways to prevent cancer: a framework for effective prevention messages for the public.

Authors:  Hank Dart; Kathleen Y Wolin; Graham A Colditz
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2012-02-26       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  Quality indicators for sentinel lymph node biopsy: is there room for improvement?

Authors:  Sergio A Acuna; Fernando A Angarita; David R McCready; Jaime Escallon
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2012, featuring the increasing incidence of liver cancer.

Authors:  A Blythe Ryerson; Christie R Eheman; Sean F Altekruse; John W Ward; Ahmedin Jemal; Recinda L Sherman; S Jane Henley; Deborah Holtzman; Andrew Lake; Anne-Michelle Noone; Robert N Anderson; Jiemin Ma; Kathleen N Ly; Kathleen A Cronin; Lynne Penberthy; Betsy A Kohler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  How generalizable are the SEER registries to the cancer populations of the USA?

Authors:  Tzy-Mey Kuo; Lee R Mobley
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.506

10.  The Mammary Tumor Microenvironment.

Authors:  Colleen S Curran; Suzanne M Ponik
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.622

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.