Literature DB >> 29603147

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

Chyke A Doubeni1, Nicole B Gabler2, Cosette M Wheeler3, Anne Marie McCarthy4, Philip E Castle5, Ethan A Halm6, Mitchell D Schnall7, Celette S Skinner8, Anna N A Tosteson9, Donald L Weaver10, Anil Vachani11, Shivan J Mehta12, Katharine A Rendle13, Stacey A Fedewa14, Douglas A Corley15,16, Katrina Armstrong17.   

Abstract

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216.
© 2018 American Cancer Society. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast; cervix uteri; colon; early detection of cancer; early diagnosis; lung; mass screening; neoplasm

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29603147      PMCID: PMC5980732          DOI: 10.3322/caac.21452

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin        ISSN: 0007-9235            Impact factor:   508.702


  119 in total

1.  Clinical usefulness of CEA as tumor marker in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  X Filella; R Molina; J L Bedini; J Jo; J Joseph; A M Ballesta
Journal:  J Nucl Med Allied Sci       Date:  1990 Oct-Dec

2.  Health Care Scheduling and Access: A Report From the IOM.

Authors:  Gary S Kaplan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Spontaneous regression of high-grade cervical dysplasia: effects of human papillomavirus type and HLA phenotype.

Authors:  Cornelia L Trimble; Steven Piantadosi; Patti Gravitt; Brigitte Ronnett; Ellen Pizer; Andrea Elko; Barbara Wilgus; William Yutzy; Richard Daniel; Keerti Shah; Shiwen Peng; Chienfu Hung; Richard Roden; Tzyy Choou Wu; Drew Pardoll
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-07-01       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  Canadian consensus on medically acceptable wait times for digestive health care.

Authors:  William G Paterson; William T Depew; Pierre Paré; Denis Petrunia; Connie Switzer; Sander J Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Sandra Daniels
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  Influence of delay to diagnosis on prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Ivo A Olivotto; Asako Gomi; Christina Bancej; Jacques Brisson; Jon Tonita; Lisa Kan; Zeva Mah; Marion Harrison; Rene Shumak
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  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

7.  Clinical and organizational factors in the initial evaluation of patients with lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  David E Ost; Sai-Ching Jim Yeung; Lynn T Tanoue; Michael K Gould
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 9.410

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.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Interval Colorectal Cancer Incidence: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Stacey A Fedewa; W Dana Flanders; Kevin C Ward; Chun Chieh Lin; Ahmedin Jemal; Ann Goding Sauer; Chyke A Doubeni; Michael Goodman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

Authors:  Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-10-12
View more
  25 in total

1.  Complicating "the good result": narratives of colorectal cancer screening when cancer is not found.

Authors:  Jean M Hunleth; Robert Gallo; Emily K Steinmetz; Aimee S James
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2019-02-04

2.  Understanding Posttreatment Patient-Provider Communication and Follow-Up Care Among Self-Identified Rural Cancer Survivors in Illinois.

Authors:  Marquita W Lewis-Thames; Leslie R Carnahan; Aimee S James; Karriem S Watson; Yamilé Molina
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2020-01-11       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Optimizing selection of candidates for lung cancer screening: role of comorbidity, frailty and life expectancy.

Authors:  Shailesh Advani; Dejana Braithwaite
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2019-12

Review 5.  The changing landscape of cancer in the USA - opportunities for advancing prevention and treatment.

Authors:  Farhad Islami; Rebecca L Siegel; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 66.675

6.  Multilevel Approaches to Reducing Diagnostic and Treatment Delay in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Implementation in Primary Care: A Call to Action.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; John M Wilkinson; Neil Korsen; David E Midthun
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Dental practitioners' use of health risk assessments for a variety of health conditions: Results from the South Atlantic region of The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Stephanie A S Staras; Yi Guo; Valeria V Gordan; Gregg H Gilbert; Deborah L McEdward; Douglas Manning; Jennifer Woodard; Elizabeth A Shenkman
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.634

9.  Patient randomized trial of a targeted navigation program to improve rates of follow-up colonoscopy in community health centers.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Eric S Johnson; Michael C Leo; Jennifer L Schneider; David Smith; Raj Mummadi; Amanda F Petrik; Jamie H Thompson; Ricardo Jimenez
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 2.226

10.  Reasons For Lack of Follow-up Colonoscopy Among Persons With A Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Result: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Diego Llovet; Mardie Serenity; Lesley Gotlib Conn; Caroline A Bravo; Bronwen R McCurdy; Catherine Dubé; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck; Amanda Peters; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 10.864

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.