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

被引：35

作者：

Barlow, William E. ^{[1
]}

Beaber, Elisabeth F. ^{[2
]}

Geller, Berta M. ^{[3
,4
]}

Kamineni, Aruna ^{[5
]}

Zheng, Yingye ^{[2
]}

Haas, Jennifer S. ^{[6
]}

Chao, Chun R. ^{[7
]}

Rutter, Carolyn M. ^{[8
]}

Zauber, Ann G. ^{[9
]}

Sprague, Brian L. ^{[10
,11
]}

Halm, Ethan A. ^{[12
,13
]}

Weaver, Donald L. ^{[14
,15
]}

Chubak, Jessica ^{[5
]}

Doria-Rose, V. Paul ^{[7
,16
]}

Kobrin, Sarah ^{[16
]}

Onega, Tracy ^{[17
,18
,19
]}

Quinn, Virginia P.

Schapira, Marilyn M. ^{[20
,21
]}

Tosteson, Anna N. A. ^{[19
,22
]}

Corley, Douglas A. ^{[23
]}

Skinner, Celette Sugg ^{[13
,24
]}

Schnall, Mitchell D. ^{[25
]}

Armstrong, Katrina ^{[26
]}

Wheeler, Cosette M. ^{[27
,28
,29
]}

Silverberg, Michael J. ^{[23
]}

Balasubramanian, Bijal A. ^{[13
,30
]}

Doubeni, Chyke A. ^{[31
]}

McLerran, Dale ^{[2
]}

Tiro, Jasmin A. ^{[13
,24
]}

机构：

[1] Canc Res & Biostat, Seattle, WA 98109 USA

[2] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Publ Hlth Sci Div, 1124 Columbia St, Seattle, WA 98104 USA

[3] Univ Vermont, Dept Family Med, Burlington, VT USA

[4] Univ Vermont, Univ Vermont Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT USA

[5] Kaiser Permanente Washington, Hlth Res Inst, Seattle, WA USA

[6] Harvard Sch Publ Hlth, Harvard Canc Inst, Dana Farber, Div Gen Internal Med,Massachusetts Gen Hosp,Harva, Boston, MA USA

[7] Kaiser Permanente Southern Calif, Dept Res & Evaluat, Pasadena, CA USA

[8] RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA USA

[9] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, New York, NY 10021 USA

[10] Univ Vermont, Dept Surg, Burlington, VT 05405 USA

[11] Univ Vermont, Dept Radiol, Burlington, VT USA

[12] Univ Texas Southwestern Med Ctr Dallas, Dept Internal Med, Dallas, TX USA

[13] Simmons Comprehens Canc Ctr, Dallas, TX USA

[14] Univ Vermont, Dept Pathol, Burlington, VT 05405 USA

[15] Univ Vermont, UVM Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT USA

[16] NCI, Healthcare Delivery Res Program, Div Canc Control & Populat Sci, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA

[17] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Dept Biomed Data Sci, Lebanon, NH USA

[18] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Dept Epidemiol, Lebanon, NH USA

[19] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Dartmouth Inst Hlth Policy & Clin Practice, Lebanon, NH USA

[20] Univ Penn, Dept Med, Perelman Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

[21] CMC VA Med Ctr, Philadelphia, PA USA

[22] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Canc Ctr, Lebanon, NH USA

[23] Kaiser Permanente Northern Calif, Div Res, Oakland, CA USA

[24] Univ Texas Southwestern Med Ctr Dallas, Dept Clin Sci, Dallas, TX 75390 USA

[25] Univ Penn, Hosp Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Philadelphia, PA USA

[26] MA Gen Hosp, Harvard Med Sch, Gen Med Div, Boston, MA USA

[27] Univ New Mexico, Dept Pathol, Hlth Sci Ctr, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA

[28] Univ New Mexico, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Hlth Sci Ctr, Albuquerque, NM USA

[29] Univ New Mexico, Comprehens Canc Ctr, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA

[30] UTHlth Sch Publ Hlth, Dallas, TX USA

[31] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Family Med & Community Hlth, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

来源：

JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE | 2020年 / 112卷 / 03期

关键词：

FACTOR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM; QUALITY-ASSURANCE; EUROPEAN GUIDELINES; UNITED-STATES; HEALTH-CARE; PERSONALIZED REGIMENS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; CONCEPTUAL-MODEL; LOCAL AREAS; EDITION;

D O I：

10.1093/jnci/djz137

中图分类号：

R73 [肿瘤学];

学科分类号：

100214 ;

摘要：

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 305568 participants for breast, 3160128 for cervical, and 2363922 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.

引用

页码：238 / 246

页数：9

共 50 条

[21] An Examination of Differential Follow-Up Rates in Cervical Cancer Screening
Patrick Fox
Pam Arnsberger
Xiulan Zhang
Journal of Community Health, 1997, 22 : 199 - 209
[22] Colorectal cancer screening, comorbidity, and follow-up in elderly patients
Garman, Katherine S.
Jeffreys, Amy
Coffman, Cynthia
Fisher, Deborah A.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2006, 332 (04): : 159 - 163
[23] Colorectal cancer screening: follow-up after colonoscopic polypectomy
Malmartel, Alexandre
EXERCER-LA REVUE FRANCOPHONE DE MEDECINE GENERALE, 2021, (178): : 460 - 461
[24] Measuring the quality of colorectal cancer screening: The importance of follow-up
Etzioni, David A.
Yano, Elizabeth M.
Rubenstein, Lisa V.
Lee, Martin L.
Ko, Gifford Y.
Brook, Robert H.
Parkerton, Patricia H.
Asch, Steven M.
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2006, 49 (07) : 1002 - 1010
[25] Follow-up of abnormal colorectal cancer screening: Challenges and solutions
May, Folasade P.
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2020, 29 (06)
[26] Colorectal cancer follow-up
Eriksen, CA
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2000, 26 (06): : 632 - 633
[27] Follow-up of colorectal cancer
Sambataro, D
Miraglia, S
Crova, A
Satolli, MA
Evangelisti, L
Mussa, A
Alabiso, O
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 1998, 34 : S16 - S16
[28] Colorectal cancer follow-up
Kelly, M. J.
Bown, E.
COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2010, 12 (02) : 157 - 157
[29] Colorectal cancer follow-up
Kronborg, O
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2000, 26 (04): : 321 - 321
[30] Patterns of cervical cancer screening follow-up in the era of prolonged screening intervals
Kulkarni, Amita
Chen, Ling
Gockley, Allison
Khoury-Collado, Fady
Hou, June
Clair, Caryn S. T.
Melamed, Alexander
Hershman, Dawn L.
Wright, Jason D.
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2023, 175 : 53 - 59

← 1 2 3 4 5 →