Literature DB >> 32409140

The Role of Imaging in Health Screening: Overview, Rationale of Screening, and Screening Economics.

David H Ballard1, Kirsteen R Burton2, Nikita Lakomkin3, Shannon Kim4, Prabhakar Rajiah5, Midhir J Patel6, Parisa Mazaheri7, Gary J Whitman8.   

Abstract

Imaging screening examinations are growing in their indications and volume to identify conditions at an early, treatable stage. The Radiology Research Alliance's 'Role of Imaging in Health Screening' Task Force provides a review of imaging-based screening rationale, economics, and describes established guidelines by various organizations. Various imaging modalities can be employed in screening, and are often chosen based on the specific pathology and patient characteristics. Prevalent disease processes with identifiable progression patterns that benefit from early potentially curative interventions are ideal for screening. Two such examples include colonic precancerous polyp progression to adenocarcinoma in colon cancer formation and atypical ductal hyperplasia progression to ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in breast cancer. Economic factors in imaging-based screening are reviewed, including in the context of value-based reimbursements. Global differences in screening are outlined, along with the role of various organizational guidelines, including the American Cancer Society, the US Preventive Services Task Force, and the American College of Radiology.
Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Healthcare economics; Imaging screening; Lead time bias; Length time bias; Population screening; Radiology screening; Screening economics

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32409140      PMCID: PMC7655697          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.03.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  34 in total

1.  Number needed to screen: appropriate use of this new basis for screening mammography guidelines.

Authors:  Stephen A Feig
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  Development and progression of colorectal cancer based on follow-up analysis.

Authors:  Takashi Hisabe; Fumihito Hirai; Toshiyuki Matsui
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 7.559

3.  Developing Quality Measures for Diagnostic Radiologists: Part 1.

Authors:  Jason N Itri; Kesav Raghavan; Samir B Patel; Jennifer C Broder; Samantha Tierney; Diedra Gray; Judy Burleson; Scott MacDonald; David J Seidenwurm
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-07-13       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 4.  Imaging-based screening: understanding the controversies.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Pari V Pandharipande; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Long-term outcomes of immediate repair compared with surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  J T Powell; A R Brady; L C Brown; F G R Fowkes; R M Greenhalgh; C V Ruckley; S G Thompson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-05-09       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  MACRA, Alternative Payment Models, and the Physician-Focused Payment Model: Implications for Radiology.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Gregory N Nicola; Bibb Allen; Danny R Hughes; Joshua A Hirsch
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 7.  Review of radiological screening programmes for breast, lung and pancreatic malignancy.

Authors:  Helena Barton; David Shatti; Charlotte Anne Jones; Mathuri Sakthithasan; Will W Loughborough
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-06

8.  Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

Authors:  William C Black; Ilana F Gareen; Samir S Soneji; JoRean D Sicks; Emmett B Keeler; Denise R Aberle; Arash Naeim; Timothy R Church; Gerard A Silvestri; Jeremy Gorelick; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Medical Care Costs Were Similar Across the Low-dose Computed Tomography and Chest X-Ray Arms of the National Lung Screening Trial Despite Different Rates of Significant Incidental Findings.

Authors:  Ilana F Gareen; William C Black; Tor D Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; JoRean D Sicks; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Productivity costs of cancer mortality in the United States: 2000-2020.

Authors:  Cathy J Bradley; K Robin Yabroff; Bassam Dahman; Eric J Feuer; Angela Mariotto; Martin L Brown
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 13.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.