Literature DB >> 24830599

Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level.

Tracy Onega1, Elisabeth F Beaber, Brian L Sprague, William E Barlow, Jennifer S Haas, Anna N A Tosteson, Mitchell D Schnall, Katrina Armstrong, Marilyn M Schapira, Berta Geller, Donald L Weaver, Emily F Conant.   

Abstract

Breast cancer screening holds a prominent place in public health, health care delivery, policy, and women's health care decisions. Several factors are driving shifts in how population-based breast cancer screening is approached, including advanced imaging technologies, health system performance measures, health care reform, concern for "overdiagnosis," and improved understanding of risk. Maximizing benefits while minimizing the harms of screening requires moving from a "1-size-fits-all" guideline paradigm to more personalized strategies. A refined conceptual model for breast cancer screening is needed to align women's risks and preferences with screening regimens. A conceptual model of personalized breast cancer screening is presented herein that emphasizes key domains and transitions throughout the screening process, as well as multilevel perspectives. The key domains of screening awareness, detection, diagnosis, and treatment and survivorship are conceptualized to function at the level of the patient, provider, facility, health care system, and population/policy arena. Personalized breast cancer screening can be assessed across these domains with both process and outcome measures. Identifying, evaluating, and monitoring process measures in screening is a focus of a National Cancer Institute initiative entitled PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens), which will provide generalizable evidence for a risk-based model of breast cancer screening, The model presented builds on prior breast cancer screening models and may serve to identify new measures to optimize benefits-to-harms tradeoffs in population-based screening, which is a timely goal in the era of health care reform.
© 2014 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; guidelines; mammography; process of care; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24830599      PMCID: PMC4342235          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28771

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


  36 in total

1.  Evidence-based breast cancer prevention: the importance of individual risk.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Introduction: Understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Heather M Edwards; Mary K Foster; Erica S Breslau; Veronica Chollette; Irene Prabhu Das; Steven B Clauser; Mary L Fennell; Jane Zapka
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

3.  Data and trends in cancer screening in the United States: results from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Barry I Graubard; Timothy S McNeel; Donald Blackman; Florence K Tangka; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Denise M Boudreau; Paul A Fishman; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 6.  Application of breast cancer risk prediction models in clinical practice.

Authors:  Susan M Domchek; Andrea Eisen; Kathleen Calzone; Jill Stopfer; Anne Blackwood; Barbara L Weber
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  A multilevel research perspective on cancer care delivery: the example of follow-up to an abnormal mammogram.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; K Robin Yabroff; Jane Zapka
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen Morrell; Alexandra Barratt; Les Irwig; Kirsten Howard; Corné Biesheuvel; Bruce Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-11-06       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

10.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Olorunsola Agbaje; Laszlo Tabar; Bedrich Vitak; Nils Bjurstam; Lena Björneld; Jonathan P Myles; Jane Warwick
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  61 in total

1.  Targeted screening of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer: results of a simulation model.

Authors:  Pari V Pandharipande; Curtis Heberle; Emily C Dowling; Chung Yin Kong; Angela Tramontano; Katherine E Perzan; William Brugge; Chin Hur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Breast density across a regional screening population: effects of age, ethnicity and deprivation.

Authors:  Samantha L Heller; Sue Hudson; Louise S Wilkinson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Candidate early detection protein biomarkers for ER+/PR+ invasive ductal breast carcinoma identified using pre-clinical plasma from the WHI observational study.

Authors:  Matthew F Buas; Jung-hyun Rho; Xiaoyu Chai; Yuzheng Zhang; Paul D Lampe; Christopher I Li
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Personalized Multi-Condition Risk Assessment in Primary Care.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Heather J Baer; Katyuska Eibensteiner; Elissa V Klinger; Stella St Hubert; George Getty; Phyllis Brawarsky; E John Orav; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; David W Bates; Graham Colditz
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jasmin Tiro; Jane Kim; Anne Marie McCarthy; Virginia P Quinn; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cosette M Wheeler; William E Barlow; Mackenzie Bronson; Michael Garcia; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Aruna Kamineni; Carolyn M Rutter; Tor D Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

7.  Recommendations on breast cancer screening and prevention in the context of implementing risk stratification: impending changes to current policies.

Authors:  J Gagnon; E Lévesque; F Borduas; J Chiquette; C Diorio; N Duchesne; M Dumais; L Eloy; W Foulkes; N Gervais; L Lalonde; B L'Espérance; S Meterissian; L Provencher; J Richard; C Savard; I Trop; N Wong; B M Knoppers; J Simard
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.677

8.  "You probably can't feel as safe as normal women": Hispanic women's reactions to breast density notification.

Authors:  Alsacia L Pacsi-Sepulveda; Rachel C Shelton; Carmen B Rodriguez; Arielle T Coq; Parisa Tehranifar
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Using Convolutional Neural Networks for Enhanced Capture of Breast Parenchymal Complexity Patterns Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Andrew Oustimov; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Lauren Pantalone; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Multi-level Influences on Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Tor D Tosteson; Julie Weiss; Jennifer S Haas; Martha Goodrich; Roberta DiFlorio; Charles Brackett; Cheryl Clark; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.