Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.
Chyke A. Doubeni,Nicole B. Gabler,Cosette M. Wheeler,Anne Marie McCarthy,Philip E. Castle,Ethan A. Halm,Mitchell D. Schnall,Celette Sugg Skinner,Anna N.A. Tosteson,Donald L. Weaver,Anil Vachani,Shivan J. Mehta,Katharine A. Rendle,Stacey A. Fedewa,Douglas A. Corley,Katrina Armstrong +15 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
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.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.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Colposcopy at a Crossroads
Jose Jeronimo,Mark Schiffman +1 more
TL;DR: It is believed that deficiencies of the colposcopically guided biopsy must be addressed, in particular, the inaccuracy of biopsy placement leading to low sensitivity for detection of CIN3.
Journal ArticleDOI
Trends in cervical cancer incidence rates by age, race/ethnicity, histological subtype, and stage at diagnosis in the United States.
TL;DR: Increasing or stabilized incidence trends for AC and attenuation of earlier declines for SCC in several subpopulations underscore the importance of intensifying efforts to reverse the increasing trends and further reduce the burden of cervical cancer in the U.S.
Journal ArticleDOI
Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–sponsored Summit
Samir Gupta,Samir Gupta,Gloria D. Coronado,Keith E. Argenbright,Alison T. Brenner,Sheila F. Castañeda,Jason A. Dominitz,Jason A. Dominitz,Beverly B. Green,Beverly B. Green,Rachel B. Issaka,Rachel B. Issaka,Theodore R. Levin,Daniel S. Reuland,Lisa C. Richardson,Douglas J. Robertson,Douglas J. Robertson,Amit G. Singal,Michael Pignone +18 more
TL;DR: It is concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.
Journal ArticleDOI
Modifiable Failures in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Process and Their Association With Risk of Death
Chyke A. Doubeni,Stacey A. Fedewa,Theodore R. Levin,Christopher D. Jensen,Chelsea Saia,Alexis M. Zebrowski,Virginia P. Quinn,Katharine A. Rendle,Ann G. Zauber,Tracy A. Becerra-Culqui,Shivan J. Mehta,Robert H. Fletcher,Joanne Schottinger,Douglas A. Corley +13 more
TL;DR: In 2 health care systems with high rates of screening, most people who died of CRC had failures in the screening process that could be rectified, such as failure to follow-up on abnormal findings; these significantly increased the risk for CRC death.
Journal ArticleDOI
A circulating extracellular vesicles-based novel screening tool for colorectal cancer revealed by shotgun and data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry.
Xi Zheng,Kailun Xu,Biting Zhou,Ting Chen,Yanqin Huang,Qilong Li,Fei Wen,Weiting Ge,Jian Wang,Shaojun Yu,Lifeng Sun,Liang Zhu,Wei Liu,Huanhuan Gao,Liang Yue,Xue Cai,Qiushi Zhang,Guan Ruan,Tiansheng Zhu,Zhicheng Wu,Yi Zhu,Yingkuan Shao,Tiannan Guo,Shu Zheng +23 more
TL;DR: DIA-MS detection of FGA+ crEVs is a potential rapid and non-invasive screening tool to identify early stage CRC and outperformed conventional tumour biomarkers.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
TL;DR: Analyzing health care organizations as complex systems, Crossing the Quality Chasm also documents the causes of the quality gap, identifies current practices that impede quality care, and explores how systems approaches can be used to implement change.
Journal ArticleDOI
Cancer statistics, 2018
TL;DR: The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak.
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D Oxman,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Regina Kunz,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Pablo Alonso-Coello,Holger J. Schünemann +6 more
TL;DR: The advantages of the GRADE system are explored, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide and which is often praised for its high level of consistency.
Journal ArticleDOI
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
Jonathan A C Sterne,Miguel A. Hernán,Barnaby C Reeves,Jelena Savović,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 J Kirkham,Peter Jüni,Yoon K. Loke,Theresa D Pigott,Craig R Ramsay,Deborah L. Regidor,Hannah R. Rothstein,Lakhbir Sandhu,Pasqualina Santaguida,Holger J. Schünemann,Beverly Shea,Ian Shrier,Peter Tugwell,Lucy Turner,Jeffrey C. Valentine,Hugh Waddington,Elizabeth Waters,George A. Wells,Penny Whiting,Julian P T Higgins +35 more
TL;DR: Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions is developed, a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units or clusters of individuals to comparison groups.
Journal ArticleDOI
Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.
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 +9 more
TL;DR: Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer, as compared with the radiography group, and the rate of death from any cause was reduced.