SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Cancer screening”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources

PubMed1992

Cervical cancer screening. Past success and future challenge.

Population screening for cervical cancer resulted in significant reduction in the morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer. An increased understanding of the relationship of HPV infection with cervical cancer and the natural history of cervical cancer precursor lesions further solidifies and expands the biological basis for cervical cancer screening. Pap tests in asymptomatic women remain the cornerstone of cervical cancer screening. Clinicians should be cognizant of the significant false-negative rate of Pap smears. Meticulous attention to proper Pap smear technique is necessary to maximize the sensitivity of the test. Further research is needed to establish the role of cervicography and HPV DNA hybridization techniques in cervical cancer screening.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer causes significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. The incidence of colorectal cancer increases at age 50, approximately. Risk factors that have been identified include a personal history of colorectal cancer or adenomas, a family history of colon cancer or adenomas, inherited colorectal cancer syndromes, and long standing inflammatory bowel disease. Several screening tests have been developed for colorectal cancer prevention. Surveillance strategy is based on an individual's colorectal cancer risk. This article reviews fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, barium enema, and genetic testing.

Barium Sulfate↗

PubMed2003

Measuring the importance of attributes that influence consumer attitudes to colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to rate the importance of attributes of screening for bowel cancer. METHOD: Randomly selected households in central Sydney were contacted to identify men and women aged 50-70 years who were then asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire about bowel cancer screening and related issues. Seven hundred and ninety-one residents (362 men and 429 women) returned questionnaires. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which each of 34 attributes would encourage them to participate in bowel cancer screening. RESULTS: The three most highly rated attributes were: if the test was recommended by their general practitioner (GP; 94% either 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed'); if the test identified early cancers (92%); and if the test would avert a premature death due to bowel cancer (90%). Having a friend or relative with bowel cancer (61%), advertising (41%) or famous people promoting the program (62%) were less influential. Respondents who were unemployed or on a pension were less likely to participate in screening than those who were employed if there was an 'out of pocket' charge of 15.00 Australian dollars (chi 2 = 7.56, 2df, P = 0.006). Respondents with higher levels of education were significantly more concerned than respondents with lower levels of education about test accuracy (chi 2 = 15.76, 2df, P < 0.001), its availability from their local chemist (chi 2 = 16.96, 2df, P < 0.001), being able to return the test kit by post (chi 2 = 21.9, 2df, P < 0.001) or deposit it with their local chemist (chi 2 = 10.0, 2df, P < 0.01). They were also less likely to be influenced by a famous person promoting bowel cancer screening (chi 2 = 18.87, 2df, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results endorse the role of the GP in bowel cancer screening. However, the study also has demonstrated that test accuracy, the convenience of the screening service and notification of test results are valued differently by subgroups in the community, according to their level of education.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2006

Gender and race/ethnicity affect the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer screening beginning at age 50 is recommended for all Americans considered at average risk for the development of colorectal cancer regardless of gender or race/ethnicity. We determined the influence of gender and race/ethnicity on the cost-effectiveness of recommended colorectal cancer screening regimens. METHODS: We determined age-specific colorectal cancer incidence rates; the proportion of left-sided cancers; and the proportion of localized cancers in Asian, black, Latino and white men and women using the California Cancer Registry. We incorporated these data and available data for life expectancy and colorectal cancer survival to model the cost-effectiveness of two 35-year colorectal cancer-screening interventions. RESULTS: Age-specific colorectal cancer incidence rates were highest in black men and lowest in Latino women. Screening beginning at age 50 was most cost-effective in black men and least cost-effective in Latino women (measured as dollars spent per year of life saved) using annual fecal occult blood testing combined with flexible sigmoidoscopy every five years and using colonoscopy every 10 years. The cost-effectiveness of a 35-year screening program in black men beginning at age 45 was similar to the cost-effectiveness of screening white men and black women beginning at age 50 and more cost-effective than screening nonblack women as well as Asian and Latino men beginning at age 50. CONCLUSIONS: Screening is most cost-effective in black men because of high age-specific colorectal cancer incidence rates. Initiation of colorectal cancer screening in this high-risk group prior to age 50 should be strongly considered.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Preferences of husbands and wives for prostate cancer screening.

The benefits of screening for prostate cancer are uncertain. Outcomes of treatment are particularly important to couples because they challenge the most intimate aspects of a couple's relationship. This study used clinical decision analysis to explore the preferences of 10 couples for prostate cancer screening. The decision-analytic model found that 7 of 10 husbands preferred the no screening strategy, while 9 of 10 wives preferred screening for their husbands. Wives associated little burden with complications of treatment, preferring to maximize their husbands' quantity of life regardless of complications. The issue of who is the decision maker is paramount in the case of prostate cancer screening. Optimal screening strategies may differ for husbands and wives. Guidelines for prostate cancer screening and management should consider assessing preferences on an individual couple basis.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Stated preference studies for cancer screening programs are used to understand how the programs can be improved to maximize usage. Our objectives were to conduct a systematic review of stated preference studies for cancer screening, identify gaps in the literature, and determine which types of research should be conducted in the future. METHODS: We considered all studies in the PubMed database through May 2005 that measured utility-based stated preferences for cancer screening using contingent valuation or conjoint analysis. We abstracted data on 1) study characteristics and 2) study results and policy implications. RESULTS: We found eight (of 84 identified) preference studies for cancer screening. The most commonly studied cancer was breast cancer, and the most commonly used method was contingent valuation. We found no studies for prostate cancer or physician preferences. Studies demonstrated that although individuals are able to state their preferences for cancer screening, they do not weigh test benefits and harms, and a significant percentage would choose to have no screening at all. Several studies found that test accuracy and reduction in mortality risk were important for determining preferences. CONCLUSION: Few studies of cancer screening preferences exist. The available studies examine only a few types of cancer and do not explore practice and policy implications in depth. The results of this review will be useful in identifying the focus of future research, identifying which screening methods may be more preferred to increase use of the programs, and developing interventions and policies that could facilitate informed and shared decision making for screening.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

Strategy for colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in Israel. Our current understanding of the colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence has led to the use of screening for timely detection of polyps and cancer. Digital examination of the rectum is a test that can be performed by all doctors. Fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are the standard screening techniques for patients. Computerized tomography colonography is now entering this field. This review discusses the merits and uncertainties of these strategies as related to the risk of colorectal cancer in selected populations.

Colonography, Computed Tomographic↗

PubMed2000

Colon cancer screening, lifestyle, and risk of colon cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Sigmoidoscopy screening and fecal occult blood (FOB) tests have been demonstrated as effective ways to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer. However, most studies of colorectal cancer screening and cancer mortality have not taken into consideration lifestyle factors that could account for the observed associations. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between screening and incidence of colon cancer, taking into consideration important lifestyle factors. METHODS: We estimated the association between screening and colon cancer after taking into consideration health and lifestyle factors using data obtained as part of population-based case-control study of incident colon cancers. RESULTS: Sigmoidoscopy screening, especially as part of a checkup, was protective against incident colon cancer in both men (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.77) and women (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.77) after adjusting for other risk factors for colon cancer. For men, associations were stronger for distal tumors (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.71) than for proximal tumors (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.11). We did not observe significant associations between FOB test and colon cancer. Differences in characteristics between those who were screened and not screened were also observed. Men were more likely to report having a sigmoidoscopy as part of a checkup than were women, as were people with higher levels of education. People who reported having a sigmoidoscopy as part of a checkup also reported eating diets lower in fat and higher in fiber, folate, and vegetables. Men were more likely to report higher levels of physical activity, and women were more likely to report taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) if they also reported a sigmoidoscopy. Both men and women who reported a sigmoidoscopy for screening purposes were more likely to have a family history of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide additional support for the benefits of having a screening sigmoidoscopy. The associations between screening sigmoidoscopy and colon cancer do not appear to be the result of lifestyle factors.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

Cancer screening guidelines.

Numerous medical organizations have developed cancer screening guidelines. Faced with the broad, and sometimes conflicting, range of recommendations for cancer screening, family physicians must determine the most reasonable and up-to-date method of screening. Major medical organizations have generally achieved consensus on screening guidelines for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. For breast cancer screening in women ages 50 to 70, clinical breast examination and mammography are generally recommended every one or two years, depending on the medical organization. For cervical cancer screening, most organizations recommend a Papanicolaou test and pelvic examination at least every three years in patients between 20 and 65 years of age. Annual fecal occult blood testing along with flexible sigmoidoscopy at five-year to 10-year intervals is the standard recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in patients older than 50 years. Screening for prostate cancer remains a matter of debate. Some organizations recommend digital rectal examination and a serum prostate-specific antigen test for men older than 50 years, while others do not. In the absence of compelling evidence to indicate a high risk of endometrial cancer, lung cancer, oral cancer and ovarian cancer, almost no medical organizations have developed cancer screening guidelines for these types of cancer.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1996

Research note: the Lions Cancer Institute and the Western Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons skin cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: The Lions Cancer Institute, Perth, and the Western Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons have been investigating the feasibility of community based skin cancer screening. Members of the community responded to newspaper advertisements to attend free skin cancer screening events. This report presents preliminary results obtained from the methods development programme. METHODS: Seventeen screening clinics were conducted in Perth (4) and country towns (14) in Western Australia between January 1991 and October 1993. The participants were interviewed and given promotional literature and their personal profiles were determined. A total body skin examination was performed by a specialist plastic surgeon and any suspicious lesions were recorded and, if necessary, recommendations for further treatment was documented. RESULTS: The number of individuals screened was 3397. Of these, 572 patients were referred to general practitioners for further medical attention of suspicious lesions, 79 patients were clinically diagnosed as having suspicious pigmented skin lesions (13.8% of total lesions and 2.3% of total sample screened). Of these, 53 individual patient pathology reports were obtained. Four invasive malignant melanomas and two in situ melanomas arising in Hutchinson's melanotic freckles were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Debates concerning the efficacy of screening for skin cancer have recently received great attention from many medical disciplines. However, as yet the effectiveness of population based skin cancer screening programmes have not been adequately evaluated with randomized controlled studies. The study reported here provides some findings that may be used to enhance future screening studies.

Academies and Institutes↗

PubMed2005

[Cancer screening: when and how?].

Advances in cancer biology have led to the development of screening tests that allow an early diagnosis. Cancer screening is not just the matter of a single individual patient, it is a matter of public health. Screening is commonly viewed as of no harm, when in fact harms are associated with the majority of cancer screening tests. A test should only be used when the potential of benefit clearly outweighs the risks for harm. The data in the literature are not always clear cut and in a lot of cases guidelines are somewhat controversial. What is known and what is unknown about screening tests is quite different from what is believed by the public. The aim of this work is to summarize the different methods and guidelines in cancer screening to help choosing the right test at the right time for the right person.

Decision Making↗

PubMed2006

Cancer screening in the USA.

Once screening for cancer has been shown to be effective, reducing cancer morbidity and mortality in the population depends on the successful delivery of mass screening. Today, screening for cancer may be achieved through the organized delivery of services, or unsystematically, by individual referral for screening at intervals which are not necessarily optimal or regularly spaced. Organized screening is distinguished from unsystematic screening primarily on the basis of how the offer of screening occurs--whether by invitation, issued from centralized population registers or coincidently, depending on individuals seeking screening on their own, or having providers initiate screening during visits for care for other reasons. This manuscript describes cancer screening in the USA, which for most Americans is unsystematic. While this model can achieve many of the goals of screening, these goals are achieved at a greater cost, less efficiently, and without the assurance of full participation of the entire, eligible population. In order to achieve the fullest potential of cancer screening in the most cost-effective manner, screening should be organized, with attention to monitoring the fullest performance of the programme from recruitment to follow-up.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Ovarian cancer screening.

Ovarian cancer is the fourth commonest cause of cancer deaths in women. Multimodal screening with serum CA125 and transvaginal ultrasonography have been shown to improve survival. However, the results so far do not justify routine screening until the impact of screening on mortality has been assessed in larger randomized trials.

CA-125 Antigen↗

PubMed1994

Dose-related doxorubicin effect in an orthotopic secondary lung cancer screen.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death of both sexes in the United States and promises to be a major problem in the world community for decades. We are developing an orthotopic (organ specific) secondary screening system to measure the uptake and efficacy of new lung cancer agents. The elements of the system are: (1) orthotopic growth of a model human lung cancer (NCI-H460 large cell carcinoma) in the right caudal lobe of the nude rat; (2) 1-hr ex vivo pulmonary perfusion treatment of the tumor-bearing lungs; and (3) soft agar clonogenic assay of the enzymatically disaggregated tumor cells. This study characterizes dose-response aspects of the system. Perfusion of tumor-bearing lungs with 0, 1, 10, and 100 micrograms/ml doxorubicin resulted in a dose-related reduction in surviving fraction from 1.01 +/- 0.41 to 0.019 +/- 0.006 (P < 0.05) without significant treatment-related increases in lung weight or perfusion pressure. Tumor and lung drug levels were also dose-related, with lung levels exceeding tumor levels at all doses. The tumor drug level at the 100 micrograms/ml dose was 62 +/- 16 ng/mg. There was a strong negative correlation between the measured tumor drug level and surviving fraction in the clonogenic assay (R2 = 0.47, P = 0.0005). This new screening system is capable of demonstrating dose-related uptake and tumoricidal activity of doxorubicin on an orthotopic, model human large cell lung carcinoma. It may be useful for the secondary screening of agents active against human lung cancer.

Animals↗

PubMed1998

Differences between African American and Caucasian men participating in a community-based prostate cancer screening program.

Prostate cancer is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in the male population, but public awareness of the cancer has been reported as minimal. We evaluated the effectiveness of an educational prostate cancer screening program on 944 men in a midwest urban community. Digital rectal examinations and PSA blood tests were provided at no charge to participants with a grant from the Michigan Department of Community Health. An educational intervention that stressed the importance of prostate cancer early detection and treatment was conducted before screenings. A brief questionnaire administered before and after the videotape and screenings, targeted both knowledge and attitudes concerning prostate cancer. Pre-test results revealed that African American men were significantly (t = 3.7, P = .00) less likely then white men to correctly identify early symptoms of prostate cancer and the basic components of a prostate checkup. Following program involvement, scores significantly improved in all areas and differences were no longer significant between the races. Racial differences were also found for screening preferences and modes of reaching men to participate in screening. African American men were twice as likely as white men to choose private appointments over mass screening (OR = 2.2, P = .00). Radio reached the most African Americans (25%) while newspaper reached the most Caucasians (34%). The decreased level of knowledge among African Americans regarding prostate etiology and clinical factors highlights the need for educational programs to target minority populations. The need for discretion also applies by providing minority-favored access with screening through private appointments.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer is a common cancer and a leading cause of cancer death in men. It is potentially detectable at early, possibly curative stages through various combinations of testing, including DRE, PSA, and TRUS of the prostate. Still unproven is the effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment, and because of that lack of proof, the optimal screening strategies are also elusive. It is possible that what is known as prostate cancer today may be, in fact, multiple entities with different natural histories, different treatment needs, and, consequently, different screening strategies. The role of informed consent has been suggested as a means to involve patients in the decision process, especially because the literature presents an environment of intense controversy. It is hoped that the PIVOT trial or similar efforts and further research into the basic mechanisms of the disease will provide clearer answers in the future.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Prostate cancer screening: knowledge, experiences and attitudes of men aged 40-79 years.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge, experiences and attitudes of men aged 40-79 years regarding screening for prostate cancer. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional telephone survey of men aged 40-79 years whose names were randomly selected from the Auckland telephone directory. The study was undertaken in the summers of 2000/2001 and 2001/2002. RESULTS: The response rate was 77% (120/156). Of the men surveyed, 81% (91/113) stated that it was necessary to test for prostate cancer in men without concerns or symptoms. The majority were not aware of complications of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Misconceptions surround prostate cancer screening. We recommend that doctors inform their patients that prostate cancer screening is controversial, and that the effectiveness of treatment for screen-detected prostate cancer is unknown. Individual patients would then be an improved position to decide about participation in screening.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening guidelines in the United States recommend that decisions about screening should incorporate patient preferences, but little is known about how patients make the trade-offs inherent in choosing one of the five currently recommended screening programmes. STUDY POPULATION: Forty-eight primary care patients at average risk for colorectal cancer who completed an experimental shared decision-making intervention based on a multicriteria decision analysis. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of priorities assigned to decision criteria describing the advantages and disadvantages of the five currently recommended colorectal screening programmes in the United States. Criteria were divided into four major criteria - avoid cancer, avoid screening side-effects, avoid false positive test results and the combined importance of other considerations - and three subcriteria: the number of screening tests, test preparation and the test itself. Cluster analysis was used to identify common combinations of priorities within each set of criteria. RESULTS: Patients assigned widely variable priorities to both the criteria and subcriteria: the average range of priorities was 46 on a 100 point priority scale. Cluster analysis identified six different combinations of priorities for the major criteria and four for the subcriteria. The differences in priorities assigned to both the criteria and subcriteria in the clusters were statistically significant with P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Even within a small group of patients, preferences vary widely regarding trade-offs involved in choosing among the currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programmes in the United States. These results provide empiric support for recommendations to utilize a shared decision-making process when making colorectal cancer screening decisions and highlight the need for additional research into how average risk patients view the trade-offs inherent in choosing a colorectal cancer screening programme.

Aged↗