Literature DB >> 24550351

Associations between cancer-related information seeking and receiving PET imaging for routine cancer surveillance--an analysis of longitudinal survey data.

Andy S L Tan1, Laura Gibson, Hanna M Zafar, Stacy W Gray, Robert C Hornik, Katrina Armstrong.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Routine cancer surveillance with positron emission tomography (PET) is not recommended for most patients who have completed curative treatment for cancer. Yet, recent trends suggest that PET is increasingly used for follow-up among patients with cancer. This study investigates whether information-seeking behaviors predicted self-reported utilization of PET for routine surveillance in patients with colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer.
METHODS: We conducted annual surveys for 3 years in a cohort of Pennsylvania cancer survivors diagnosed with colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer in 2005. The outcome was self-reported PET receipt for routine surveillance among 944 patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic disease (stages 0-III). Predictors included cancer-related information seeking from nonmedical sources and providers. Weighted multiple logistic regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS: In this population, 11% of patients reported receiving at least one PET scan for routine follow-up in a 12-month period several years after diagnosis. Seeking cancer-related information from nonmedical sources was associated with higher odds of subsequent reported PET use [OR, 3.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-12.1; P = 0.032], after adjusting for potential confounders. Patient engagement with physicians about cancer-related information was not a significant predictor.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall reported PET utilization for routine surveillance of colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer is low. However, we found a significant association with information seeking from nonmedical sources but not from providers. IMPACT: Exposure to cancer-related information through mass media and lay interpersonal sources may be driving inappropriate utilization of high-cost advanced imaging procedures. These findings have important implications for cancer survivors, healthcare providers, and health policy. ©2014 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24550351      PMCID: PMC3951580          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  38 in total

1.  Doc, shouldn't we be getting some tests?

Authors:  C L Loprinzi; D Hayes; T Smith
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Seeking cancer-related information from media and family/friends increases fruit and vegetable consumption among cancer patients.

Authors:  Nehama Lewis; Lourdes S Martinez; Derek R Freres; J Sanford Schwartz; Katrina Armstrong; Stacy W Gray; Taressa Fraze; Rebekah H Nagler; Angel Bourgoin; Robert C Hornik
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2011-09-20

3.  Utilization trends for advanced imaging procedures: evidence from individuals with private insurance coverage in California.

Authors:  Jean M Mitchell
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Judy Illes; Dylan Kann; Kim Karetsky; Phillip Letourneau; Thomas A Raffin; Pamela Schraedley-Desmond; Barbara A Koenig; Scott W Atlas
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2004 Dec 13-27

5.  Impact of direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing on genetic services at a managed care organization: a naturally-occurring experiment.

Authors:  Judy Mouchawar; Sharon Hensley-Alford; Suzanne Laurion; Jennifer Ellis; Alanna Kulchak-Rahm; Melissa L Finucane; Richard Meenan; Lisen Axell; Rebecca Pollack; Debra Ritzwoller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Addressing overutilization in medical imaging.

Authors:  William R Hendee; Gary J Becker; James P Borgstede; Jennifer Bosma; William J Casarella; Beth A Erickson; C Douglas Maynard; James H Thrall; Paul E Wallner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET.

Authors:  Gerhard W Goerres; Sven C A Michel; Mathias K Fehr; Achim H Kaim; Hans C Steinert; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Rahel A Kubik-Huch
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-11-13       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Eric B Larson
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  Patient-clinician information engagement increases treatment decision satisfaction among cancer patients through feeling of being informed.

Authors:  Lourdes S Martinez; J Sanford Schwartz; Derek Freres; Taressa Fraze; Robert C Hornik
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-10-07

10.  Patient-clinician information engagement improves adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance after curative treatment: results from a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Andy S L Tan; Mihaela Moldovan-Johnson; Sarah Parvanta; Stacy W Gray; Katrina Armstrong; Robert C Hornik
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-08-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.