Literature DB >> 25984847

Screening for cancer: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians.

Timothy J Wilt, Russell P Harris, Amir Qaseem.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is one approach to reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality rates. Screening strategies vary in intensity. Higher-intensity strategies are not necessarily higher value. High-value strategies provide a degree of benefits that clearly justifies the harms and costs incurred; low-value screening provides limited or no benefits to justify the harms and costs. When cancer screening leads to benefits, an optimal intensity of screening maximizes value. Some aspects of screening practices, especially overuse and underuse, are low value.
METHODS: Screening strategies for asymptomatic, average-risk adults for 5 common types of cancer were evaluated by reviewing clinical guidelines and evidence syntheses from the American College of Physicians (ACP), U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Cancer Society, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Urological Association. "High value" was defined as the lowest screening intensity threshold at which organizations agree about screening recommendations for each type of cancer and "low value" as agreement about not recommending overly intensive screening strategies. This information is supplemented with additional findings from randomized, controlled trials; modeling studies; and studies of costs or resource use, including information found in the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query and UpToDate. The ACP provides high-value care screening advice for 5 common types of cancer; the specifics are outlined in this article. The ACP strongly encourages clinicians to adopt a cancer screening strategy that focuses on reaching all eligible persons with these high-value screening options while reducing overly intensive, low-value screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25984847     DOI: 10.7326/M14-2326

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  71 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening panels continue to confuse the facts and inject their own biases.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Screening Mammography Among Older Women: A Review of United States Guidelines and Potential Harms.

Authors:  Deborah S Mack; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Influence of Age, Health, and Function on Cancer Screening in Older Adults with Limited Life Expectancy.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Jin Huang; Orla C Sheehan; Jennifer L Wolff; David L Roth; Cynthia M Boyd
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Shrujal S Baxi; Minal Kale; Salomeh Keyhani; Benjamin R Roman; Annie Yang; Antonio P Derosa; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Systems Delivery Innovation for Alzheimer Disease.

Authors:  Nicholas T Bott; Clifford C Sheckter; Daniel Yang; Stephanie Peters; Brian Brady; Scooter Plowman; Soo Borson; Bruce Leff; Robert M Kaplan; Terry Platchek; Arnold Milstein
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 4.105

6.  Variation in Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations by Primary Care Providers Surveyed in Wisconsin.

Authors:  Emily Nachtigal; Noelle K LoConte; Sarah Kerch; Xiao Zhang; Amanda Parkes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 7.  IBD in the Elderly: Management Challenges and Therapeutic Considerations.

Authors:  Vivy Tran; Berkeley N Limketkai; Jenny S Sauk
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2019-11-27

8.  Utilization of breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging in community practice.

Authors:  Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Robert Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Louise M Henderson; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low-Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare.

Authors:  Wendy Yi Xu; Jeah Kyoungrae Jung
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Risk of Colorectal Neoplasia in Individuals With Self-Reported Family History: A Prospective Colonoscopy Study from 16 Asia-Pacific Regions.

Authors:  Martin C S Wong; Jessica Y L Ching; Han-Mo Chiu; Kai Chun Wu; Rungsun Rerknimitr; Jingnan Li; Deng-Chiang Wu; Khean Lee Goh; Takahisa Matsuda; Hyun-Soo Kim; Rupert Leong; Khay Guan Yeoh; Vui Heng Chong; Jose D Sollano; Furqaan Ahmed; Jayaram Menon; Siew C Ng; Justin C Y Wu; Francis K L Chan; Joseph J Y Sung
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 10.864

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.