Literature DB >> 29150480

Effect of Time to Diagnostic Testing for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Abnormalities on Screening Efficacy: A Modeling Study.

Carolyn M Rutter1, Jane J Kim2, Reinier G S Meester3, Brian L Sprague4, Emily A Burger2, Ann G Zauber5, Mehmet Ali Ergun6, Nicole G Campos2, Chyke A Doubeni7, Amy Trentham-Dietz8, Stephen Sy2, Oguzhan Alagoz6, Natasha Stout2, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar3, Douglas A Corley9, Anna N A Tosteson10,11.   

Abstract

Background: Patients who receive an abnormal cancer screening result require follow-up for diagnostic testing, but the time to follow-up varies across patients and practices.
Methods: We used a simulation study to estimate the change in lifetime screening benefits when time to follow-up for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers was increased. Estimates were based on four independently developed microsimulation models that each simulated the life course of adults eligible for breast (women ages 50-74 years), cervical (women ages 21-65 years), or colorectal (adults ages 50-75 years) cancer screening. We assumed screening based on biennial mammography for breast cancer, triennial Papanicolaou testing for cervical cancer, and annual fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer. For each cancer type, we simulated diagnostic testing immediately and at 3, 6, and 12 months after an abnormal screening exam.
Results: We found declines in screening benefit with longer times to diagnostic testing, particularly for breast cancer screening. Compared to immediate diagnostic testing, testing at 3 months resulted in reduced screening benefit, with fewer undiscounted life years gained per 1,000 screened (breast: 17.3%, cervical: 0.8%, colorectal: 2.0% and 2.7%, from two colorectal cancer models), fewer cancers prevented (cervical: 1.4% fewer, colorectal: 0.5% and 1.7% fewer, respectively), and, for breast and colorectal cancer, a less favorable stage distribution.Conclusions: Longer times to diagnostic testing after an abnormal screening test can decrease screening effectiveness, but the impact varies substantially by cancer type.Impact: Understanding the impact of time to diagnostic testing on screening effectiveness can help inform quality improvement efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(2); 158-64. ©2017 AACR. ©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29150480      PMCID: PMC5809257          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0378

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


  30 in total

1.  The Mammography Quality Standards Act. An overview of the regulations and guidance.

Authors:  B S Monsees
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Variation in tumor natural history contributes to racial disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis.

Authors:  Nataliya G Batina; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Ronald E Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Marjorie A Rosenberg; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Oguzhan Alagoz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane J Kim; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Ann G Zauber; Ann M Geiger; Aruna Kamineni; Donald L Weaver; Jasmin A Tiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  An updated natural history model of cervical cancer: derivation of model parameters.

Authors:  Nicole G Campos; Emily A Burger; Stephen Sy; Monisha Sharma; Mark Schiffman; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Inefficiencies and High-Value Improvements in U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Practice: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jack Cuzick; Philip E Castle; William C Hunt; Alan Waxman; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; J Dik F Habbema; Reinier G Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Time to Colonoscopy after Positive Fecal Blood Test in Four U.S. Health Care Systems.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Michael P Garcia; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Yingye Zheng; Douglas A Corley; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal; Carrie N Klabunde; Chyke A Doubeni; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Joanne E Schottinger; Beverly B Green; Virginia P Quinn; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening.

Authors:  Thomas F Imperiale; David F Ransohoff; Steven H Itzkowitz; Theodore R Levin; Philip Lavin; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials.

Authors:  R Peto; C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; H C Pan; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; C Taylor; Y C Wang; J Bergh; A Di Leo; K Albain; S Swain; M Piccart; K Pritchard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  13 in total

1.  Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Aruna Kamineni; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Brian Hixon; Sarah C Kobrin; Christopher I Li; Malia Oliver; Katharine A Rendle; Celette Sugg Skinner; Kaitlin Todd; Yingye Zheng; Rebecca A Ziebell; Erica S Breslau; Jessica Chubak; Douglas A Corley; Robert T Greenlee; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Stacey Honda; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Debra P Ritzwoller; Joanne E Schottinger; Jasmin A Tiro; Anil Vachani; V Paul Doria-Rose
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 4.090

2.  The impact of cumulative colorectal cancer screening delays: A simulation study.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; John M Inadomi; Christopher E Maerzluft
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 1.687

3.  Time to Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Screening by Health Insurance Type.

Authors:  Nancy Breen; Celette Sugg Skinner; Yingye Zheng; Stephen Inrig; Douglas A Corley; Elisabeth F Beaber; Mike Garcia; Jessica Chubak; Chyke Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Jennifer S Haas; Christopher I Li; Karen J Wernli; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Time to Colonoscopy After Abnormal Stool-Based Screening and Risk for Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality.

Authors:  Yazmin San Miguel; Joshua Demb; Maria Elena Martinez; Samir Gupta; Folasade P May
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Population-based e-records to evaluate HPV triage of screen-detected atypical squamous cervical lesions in Catalonia, Spain, 2010-15.

Authors:  Silvia de Sanjosé; Vanesa Rodríguez-Salés; Xavier F Bosch; Raquel Ibañez; Laia Bruni
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Mammography facilities serving vulnerable women have longer follow-up times.

Authors:  Leah S Karliner; Celia Kaplan; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Delayed Colonoscopy Following a Positive Fecal Test Result and Cancer Mortality.

Authors:  Anath A Flugelman; Nili Stein; Ori Segol; Idit Lavi; Lital Keinan-Boker
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2019-05-02

8.  Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Nicole B Gabler; Cosette M Wheeler; Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip E Castle; Ethan A Halm; Mitchell D Schnall; Celette S Skinner; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Anil Vachani; Shivan J Mehta; Katharine A Rendle; Stacey A Fedewa; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 9.  Reflecting on 20 years of breast cancer modeling in CISNET: Recommendations for future cancer systems modeling efforts.

Authors:  Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christina Chapman; Xuelin Huang; Jinani Jayasekera; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Jennifer M Yeh; Sylvia K Plevritis; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening Delay: Effect on Stage Shift and Increased Mortality.

Authors:  Luigi Ricciardiello; Clarissa Ferrari; Michela Cameletti; Federica Gaianill; Francesco Buttitta; Franco Bazzoli; Gian Luigi de'Angelis; Alberto Malesci; Luigi Laghi
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-09-06       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.