Literature DB >> 26112898

Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms.

Jessica C Germino1, Joann G Elmore2, Ruth C Carlos3, Christoph I Lee4.   

Abstract

Advanced imaging technologies play a central role in screening asymptomatic patients. However, the balance between imaging-based screening's potential benefits versus risks is sometimes unclear. Radiologists will have to address ongoing concerns, including high false-positive rates, incidental findings outside the organ of interest, overdiagnosis, and potential risks from radiation exposure. In this article, we provide a brief overview of these recurring controversies and suggest the following as areas that radiologists should focus on in order to tip the balance toward more benefits and less harms for patients undergoing imaging-based screening: interpretive variability, abnormal finding thresholds, and personalized, risk-based screening.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  False-positives; Imaging-based screening; Incidental findings; Overdiagnosis; Screening harms

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26112898      PMCID: PMC4676956          DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.06.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Imaging        ISSN: 0899-7071            Impact factor:   1.605


  77 in total

1.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Counterpoint: Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert A Smith
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Honor J Passow
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Natasha K Stout; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Scott D Ramsey; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Efficacy of computer-aided detection as a second reader for 6-9-mm lesions at CT colonography: multicenter prospective trial.

Authors:  Daniele Regge; Patrizia Della Monica; Giovanni Galatola; Cristiana Laudi; Antonella Zambon; Loredana Correale; Roberto Asnaghi; Brunella Barbaro; Claudia Borghi; Delia Campanella; Maria Carla Cassinis; Riccardo Ferrari; Andrea Ferraris; Cesare Hassan; Rita Golfieri; Franco Iafrate; Gabriella Iussich; Andrea Laghi; Roberto Massara; Emanuele Neri; Lapo Sali; Silvia Venturini; Giovanni Gandini
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers.

Authors:  C Daniel Johnson; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Alicia Y Toledano; Jay P Heiken; Abraham Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Amy K Hara; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; Lawrence J Burgart; Paul J Limburg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-09-18       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel.

Authors:  Kimberly H Allison; Lisa M Reisch; Patricia A Carney; Donald L Weaver; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Berta M Geller; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 5.087

8.  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

Review 9.  A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Surveillance for Late Effects in Childhood Cancer Survivors.

Authors:  Wendy Landier; Roderick Skinner; W Hamish Wallace; Lars Hjorth; Renée L Mulder; F Lennie Wong; Yutaka Yasui; Nickhill Bhakta; Louis S Constine; Smita Bhatia; Leontien C Kremer; Melissa M Hudson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  The Utility of Routine Ultrasound Imaging after Elective Transplant Ureteric Stent Removal.

Authors:  Bibek Das; Dorian Hobday; Jonathon Olsburgh; Chris Callaghan
Journal:  J Transplant       Date:  2016-07-14

3.  Diagnosis of Cerebral Aneurysm Via Magnetic Resonance Angiography Screening: Emphasis on Legal Responsibility Increases False Positive Rate.

Authors:  Su-Hee Cho; Ji-Ye Lee; Kyeong-Hwa Ryu; Dae Chul Suh
Journal:  Neurointervention       Date:  2018-03-02

Review 4.  Nanomedicine Ex Machina: Between Model-Informed Development and Artificial Intelligence.

Authors:  Mônica Villa Nova; Tzu Ping Lin; Saeed Shanehsazzadeh; Kinjal Jain; Samuel Cheng Yong Ng; Richard Wacker; Karim Chichakly; Matthias G Wacker
Journal:  Front Digit Health       Date:  2022-02-18
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.