Abbey Diaz1, Jimin Kang2, Suzanne P Moore3, Peter Baade4, Danette Langbecker5, John R Condon6, Patricia C Valery7. 1. Wellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University. PO Box 10639, Brisbane, Qld, 4000, Australia. Electronic address: abbey.diaz@menzies.edu.au. 2. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, 288 Herston Road, Herston Qld 4006, Australia; QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, 300 Herston Road, Herston Qld 4006Australia. Electronic address: jimin.kang@uq.net.au. 3. Wellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University. PO Box 10639, Brisbane, Qld, 4000, Australia. Electronic address: suzanne.moore@menzies.edu.au. 4. Cancer Council Queensland, 553 Gregory Terrace, Fortitude Valley Qld 4006, Australia. Electronic address: PeterBaade@cancerqld.org.au. 5. Centre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld, 4072, Australia. Electronic address: d.langbecker@uq.edu.au. 6. Wellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University. PO Box 10639, Brisbane, Qld, 4000, Australia. Electronic address: john.condon@menzies.edu.au. 7. Wellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University. PO Box 10639, Brisbane, Qld, 4000, Australia; QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, 300 Herston Road, Herston Qld 4006Australia. Electronic address: patricia.valery@qimrberghofer.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is associated with poor outcomes for cancer patients but it is less clear how it influences cancer prevention and early detection. This review synthesizes evidence from studies that have quantified the association between comorbidity and participation in breast and cervical screening. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were systematically searched using key terms related to cancer screening and comorbidity for original research articles published between 1 January 1991 and 21 March 2016. Two reviewers independently screened 1283 studies that met eligibility criteria related to Population (adult, non-cancer populations), Exposure (comorbidity), Comparison (a 'no comorbidity' group), and Outcome (participation in breast cancer or cervical screening). Data was extracted and risk of bias assessed using a standardised tool from the 22 studies identified for inclusion (17 breast; 13 cervical). Meta-analyses were performed for participation in breast and cervical screening, stratified by important study characteristics. RESULTS: The majority of studies were conducted in the United States. Results of individual studies were variable. Most had medium to high risk of bias. Based on the three "low risk of bias" studies, mammography screening was less common among those with comorbidity (pooled Odds Ratio 0.66, 95%CI 0.44-0.88). The one "low risk of bias" study of cervical screening reported a negative association between comorbidity and participation. CONCLUSION: While a definitive conclusion could not be drawn, the results from high quality studies suggest that women with comorbidity are less likely to participate in breast, and possibly cervical, cancer screening.
BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is associated with poor outcomes for cancerpatients but it is less clear how it influences cancer prevention and early detection. This review synthesizes evidence from studies that have quantified the association between comorbidity and participation in breast and cervical screening. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were systematically searched using key terms related to cancer screening and comorbidity for original research articles published between 1 January 1991 and 21 March 2016. Two reviewers independently screened 1283 studies that met eligibility criteria related to Population (adult, non-cancer populations), Exposure (comorbidity), Comparison (a 'no comorbidity' group), and Outcome (participation in breast cancer or cervical screening). Data was extracted and risk of bias assessed using a standardised tool from the 22 studies identified for inclusion (17 breast; 13 cervical). Meta-analyses were performed for participation in breast and cervical screening, stratified by important study characteristics. RESULTS: The majority of studies were conducted in the United States. Results of individual studies were variable. Most had medium to high risk of bias. Based on the three "low risk of bias" studies, mammography screening was less common among those with comorbidity (pooled Odds Ratio 0.66, 95%CI 0.44-0.88). The one "low risk of bias" study of cervical screening reported a negative association between comorbidity and participation. CONCLUSION: While a definitive conclusion could not be drawn, the results from high quality studies suggest that women with comorbidity are less likely to participate in breast, and possibly cervical, cancer screening.
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Cancer screening; Cervical neoplasms; Chronic disease; Comorbidity; Early detection of cancer; Mammography; Meta-analysis; Multimorbidity; Papanicolaou test
Authors: Gregory S Calip; Onchee Yu; Denise M Boudreau; Huibo Shao; Ruth Oratz; Stephen B Richardson; Heather T Gold Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Gertraud Maskarinec; Yurii B Shvetsov; Shannon M Conroy; Christopher A Haiman; Veronica W Setiawan; Loïc Le Marchand Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Abbey Diaz; Peter D Baade; Patricia C Valery; Lisa J Whop; Suzanne P Moore; Joan Cunningham; Gail Garvey; Julia M L Brotherton; Dianne L O'Connell; Karen Canfell; Diana Sarfati; David Roder; Elizabeth Buckley; John R Condon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Martin Amogre Ayanore; Martin Adjuik; Asiwome Ameko; Nuworza Kugbey; Robert Asampong; Derrick Mensah; Robert Kaba Alhassan; Agani Afaya; Mark Aviisah; Emmanuel Manu; Francis Zotor Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Carrie M Nielson; Erin M Keast; Amanda F Petrik; Jerry M Suls Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Colin Malone; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin Tiro; William Barlow; Hongyuan Gao; John Lin; Rachel L Winer Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 4.018