Marialaura Simonetto1, Stephanie Rutrick1, Natalie M LeMoss1, Kelsey N Lansdale1, Scott T Tagawa2, Hooman Kamel1, Neal Parikh1, Babak B Navi3. 1. Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Unit, Department of Neurology and Feil Brain and Mind Research Institute, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA. 2. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA. 3. Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Unit, Department of Neurology and Feil Brain and Mind Research Institute, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA. Electronic address: ban9003@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cancer can present as stroke. Several cancer types have established screening guidelines. We investigated adherence to guideline-recommended cancer screening in stroke survivors versus the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using 2012-2018 data from the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. BRFSS is a nationally-representative telephone survey of non-institutionalized Americans that collects data about health conditions and behaviors, including cancer screening. We defined guideline-recommended colorectal, lung, and breast cancer screening based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We used survey-specific methods to estimate up-to-date screening rates for those with and without prior stroke. We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of up-to-date screening in stroke survivors compared to those without history of stroke after adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: Among 1,018,440 respondents eligible for colorectal cancer screening, 66% were up-to-date. Among 6,880 respondents eligible for lung cancer screening, 16% were up-to-date. Among 548,434 women eligible for breast cancer screening, 78% were up-to-date. After adjustment for demographics and confounders, stroke survivors were more likely to have up-to-date colorectal cancer screening (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16), equally likely to undergo lung cancer screening (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62-1.59), and less likely to undergo breast cancer screening (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In a nationwide analysis, stroke survivors had similar suboptimal adherence to guideline-recommended cancer screening as the general population.
OBJECTIVES: Cancer can present as stroke. Several cancer types have established screening guidelines. We investigated adherence to guideline-recommended cancer screening in stroke survivors versus the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using 2012-2018 data from the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. BRFSS is a nationally-representative telephone survey of non-institutionalized Americans that collects data about health conditions and behaviors, including cancer screening. We defined guideline-recommended colorectal, lung, and breast cancer screening based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We used survey-specific methods to estimate up-to-date screening rates for those with and without prior stroke. We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of up-to-date screening in stroke survivors compared to those without history of stroke after adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: Among 1,018,440 respondents eligible for colorectal cancer screening, 66% were up-to-date. Among 6,880 respondents eligible for lung cancer screening, 16% were up-to-date. Among 548,434 women eligible for breast cancer screening, 78% were up-to-date. After adjustment for demographics and confounders, stroke survivors were more likely to have up-to-date colorectal cancer screening (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16), equally likely to undergo lung cancer screening (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62-1.59), and less likely to undergo breast cancer screening (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In a nationwide analysis, stroke survivors had similar suboptimal adherence to guideline-recommended cancer screening as the general population.
Authors: Babak B Navi; Anne S Reiner; Hooman Kamel; Costantino Iadecola; Peter M Okin; Mitchell S V Elkind; Katherine S Panageas; Lisa M DeAngelis Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey Peppercorn; Kevin Houck; Nina Beri; Victor Villagra; Adane F Wogu; Gary H Lyman; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-09-19 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael E Jones; Minouk J Schoemaker; Lauren B Wright; Alan Ashworth; Anthony J Swerdlow Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 6.466