Literature DB >> 31292633

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

William E Barlow1, Elisabeth F Beaber2, Berta M Geller3, Aruna Kamineni4, Yingye Zheng2, Jennifer S Haas5, Chun R Chao6, Carolyn M Rutter7, Ann G Zauber8, Brian L Sprague9, Ethan A Halm10,11, Donald L Weaver12, Jessica Chubak4, V Paul Doria-Rose6,13, Sarah Kobrin13, Tracy Onega14, Virginia P Quinn, Marilyn M Schapira15, Anna N A Tosteson16, Douglas A Corley17, Celette Sugg Skinner11,18, Mitchell D Schnall19, Katrina Armstrong20, Cosette M Wheeler21,22, Michael J Silverberg17, Bijal A Balasubramanian11,23, Chyke A Doubeni24, Dale McLerran2, Jasmin A Tiro11,18.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.
METHODS: We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.
RESULTS: The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31292633      PMCID: PMC7073922          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz137

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  47 in total

1.  MQSA (Mammography Quality Standards Act) update--focusing on quality assurance.

Authors:  P F Butler
Journal:  Radiol Manage       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug

2.  Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Across Healthcare Systems.

Authors:  Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Shivan J Mehta; Yingye Zheng; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale F McLerran; Jessica Chubak; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Douglas A Corley; John M Inadomi; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Breast Cancer With a Poor Prognosis Diagnosed After Screening Mammography With Negative Results.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Jennifer S Haas; Christopher I Li; Brian L Sprague; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

5.  Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Brian L Sprague; Carrie N Klabunde; Anna N A Tosteson; Jane S Chen; Asaf Bitton; Elisabeth F Beaber; Tracy Onega; Jane J Kim; Charles D MacLean; Kimberly Harris; Phillip Yamartino; Kathleen Howe; Loretta Pearson; Sarah Feldman; Phyllis Brawarsky; Marilyn M Schapira
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Monitoring Lung Cancer Screening Use and Outcomes at Four Cancer Research Network Sites.

Authors:  Michael K Gould; Lori C Sakoda; Debra P Ritzwoller; Michael J Simoff; Christine M Neslund-Dudas; Lawrence H Kushi; Lisa Carter-Harris; Heather Spencer Feigelson; George Minowada; V Paul Doria-Rose
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2017-12

7.  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

8.  Breast cancer screening initiation after turning 40 years of age within the PROSPR consortium.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Anne Marie McCarthy; Chyke A Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ann G Zauber; William E Barlow
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Influence of Age and Comorbidity on Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Yingye Zheng; Virginia P Quinn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Carolyn M Rutter; Ethan A Halm; Jessica Chubak; Chyke A Doubeni; Jennifer S Haas; Aruna Kamineni; Marilyn M Schapira; Pamela M Vacek; Michael P Garcia; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Surveillance for Certain Health Behaviors, Chronic Diseases, and Conditions, Access to Health Care, and Use of Preventive Health Services Among States and Selected Local Areas
- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2012.

Authors:  Pranesh P Chowdhury; Tebitha Mawokomatanda; Fang Xu; Sonya Gamble; David Flegel; Carol Pierannunzi; William Garvin; Machell Town
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2016-04-29
View more
  13 in total

1.  Primary Care Provider Beliefs and Recommendations About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four Healthcare Systems.

Authors:  Nirupa R Ghai; Christopher D Jensen; Sophie A Merchant; Joanne E Schottinger; Jeffrey K Lee; Jessica Chubak; Aruna Kamineni; Ethan A Halm; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jennifer S Haas; Beverly B Green; Nancy T Cannizzaro; Jennifer L Schneider; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2020-07-15

2.  Challenges and Approaches to Measuring Repeat Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Ethan A Halm; Celette Sugg Skinner; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Amit G Singal
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Low Prevalence of Screen-Detected Colorectal Cancer in an Average-Risk Population: The New Normal.

Authors:  A Shaukat; T L Marsh; S D Crockett; S Syngal; R S Bresalier; D E Brenner
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  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

5.  Cancer mortality in Italian populations: differences between Italy and the USA.

Authors:  Claudia Santucci; Heidy N Medina; Greta Carioli; Eva Negri; Carlo La Vecchia; Paulo S Pinheiro
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 2.164

6.  Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.

Authors:  Glen B Taksler; Elisabeth F P Peterse; Isarah Willems; Kevin Ten Haaf; Erik E L Jansen; Inge M C M de Kok; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Harry J de Koning; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 7.  Conceptual Model for the Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Continuum: Current Status and Research Agenda.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Anna S Lok; Ziding Feng; Fasiha Kanwal; Neehar D Parikh
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  Long noncoding RNA HCG11 inhibited growth and invasion in cervical cancer by sponging miR-942-5p and targeting GFI1.

Authors:  Yan Zhang; Jun Zhang; Lin Mao; Xing Li
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  Factors Associated with Participation in Stool Based Colorectal Screening in Brunei Darussalam.

Authors:  Vui Heng Chong; Lydiana Kadir; Zakaria Kamis; Norhayati Kassim; Muhammad Abdul Mabood Khalil; Jackson Tan; Elvynna Leong; Sok King Ong; Chee Fui Chong
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2020-08-01

10.  Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback in Guidelines Development for the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests.

Authors:  Rebecca B Perkins; Lindsay N Fuzzell; Paige Lake; McKenzie McIntyre; Ritu Nayar; Mona Saraiya; Jennifer Loukissas; Tamika Felder; Richard S Guido; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.842

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.