PubMed Health⌕ Search

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 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

[Evidence-based colorectal cancer screening].

Colorectal cancer has been identified as an appropriate candidate for early detection and treatment of both asymptomatic individuals and those at risk of the disease. The lifetime incidence of colorectal cancer among persons at average risk is sufficiently high to justify screening the general population. This review presents the latest strategies employed in early detection of the colorectal cancer. An ideal screening test should satisfy some basic criteria: must be simple, secure, accepted by the population with valid and reproductive results. Despite the demonstrated benefits of colorectal cancer screening, incidence and mortality rates of this common cancer remain high. More optimally tailored screening tools are needed that combine the features of a potentially ideal screening test.

Colonoscopy↗
PubMed2003

[Virtual colonoscopy: a new hope for colorectal cancer screening].

Colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death and the first one in non-smoking persons. None of the current colorectal caner screening options is ideal. As for mammography in breast cancer screening, virtual colonoscopy, although still in clinical evaluation, promises to become a primary screening method as it is performant, quick, non-invasive and cheaper than conventional colonoscopy.

Colonic Polyps↗
PubMed2005

Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Veterans.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider-directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention. METHODS: Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to dollar 196 per additional veteran screened. CONCLUSION: An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.

Aged↗
PubMed1994

The impact of the first 3 years of breast cancer screening on the overall presentation of breast cancer.

We have assessed the effect of the first round of the Breast Cancer Screening Programme on the presentation of breast cancer in the Southampton Health District with respect to number of cases and pathological characteristics. A retrospective comparative survey of the presentation of breast cancer in the 3 years prior to breast cancer screening (1985-1988) with the presentation of breast cancer during the prevalent round of breast cancer screening (1988-1991) was performed. During the period of study 1536 cases of breast cancer presented. Six hundred and sixty presented in the years prior to screening and 864 during the first round of screening. All patients lived within the Southampton Health District. The study was designed to assess the changes in breast cancer presentation with regard to age, pathological characteristics, and treatment. Even allowing for the increases in the local population there was a significant increase in the number of cases of breast cancer diagnosed (chi 2 = 23.7, df = 1, P < 0.001). The majority of this increase was in the 50-64 age group. There was also a significant shift towards an earlier stage at diagnosis and a significant reduction in tumour size when all cases were included (mean 26 mm versus 34 mm P < 0.001). Screening also created the opportunity for less invasive treatment. Consequently there was a rise in the number of excisions by localization biopsy from 1% to 13% during the screening period. In conclusion, the National Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) has had a significant impact on the presentation of breast cancer.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Patient and provider barriers to colorectal cancer screening in the primary care safety-net.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines patient and provider barriers to screening for colorectal cancer among low-income uninsured African-Americans aged 50 years or older in an urban safety-net primary care clinic, with the goal of informing a future intervention. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted among 40 patients from, or living in the immediate neighborhood of, a primary care clinic for uninsured residents of Washington, DC. An additional focus group was conducted among primary care providers from the same clinic. Using semistructured open-ended questions, moderators elicited perceptions of barriers and promoters of colorectal cancer screening and suggestions to improve adherence to screening guidelines. The focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were independently coded by two reviewers using established qualitative methodology. RESULTS: Patient and provider comments from the five focus groups fell into one of eight content areas: primary care characteristics (36% of comments), procedural issues related to screening (16% of comments), knowledge (14% of comments), cost/insurance coverage (13%), ordering of priorities (12%), attitudes (5%), information sources (2%), and perceptions of discrimination (2%). Involving various members of the primary care team in colorectal cancer screening processes, and using reminders with feedback, were identified as promising avenues for future interventions in the safety-net setting. Patients and providers cited the lack of referral sources for colonoscopy for follow-up of abnormal fecal occult blood tests (FOBT), and lack of treatment sources as major barriers to the initiation of colorectal cancer screening in uninsured populations. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational level interventions, such as a team approach to colorectal cancer screening, are important areas identified for future colorectal cancer screening interventions in the safety-net primary care setting. Larger policy efforts to provide coverage for screening, diagnosis, and treatment among the uninsured are critical to implementing adequate colorectal cancer screening for this population.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2005

[Cancer screening].

The purpose of cancer screening is to widen the difference between morbidity and mortality of the target cancer. Since 1983 cancer screening has been supported by the Japanese government. Initially it covered gastric and cervical cancer with lung, breast and endometrial cancers supported from 1987 and colorectal cancer in 1992. Since 1998 support for cancer screening has been transferred to local government. It is generally accepted that the uptake of screening services is too low. Estimates for Japan suggest that at best 30% of the eligible population accept the services. In other parts of the world screening is more widely accepted, for example, 67% for breast cancer and 79% for cervical screening in the USA. Barriers within Japan for increasing screening are complex and include, legal, ethical, financial, technical infrastructure, data related matters and the level of understanding and education of the general public. In 2000 the MHLW conducted an evaluation of cancer screening in terms of usefulness and effectiveness. It concluded that fair or better evidence for reduction in mortality existed for cervical cancer (cytology), breast cancer (mammography with clinical examination for women aged > or = 50 years), colorectal cancer (faecal occult blood test), gastric cancer, lung cancer and liver cancer. As a step towards improving screening services and their uptake by the general public a new Research Centre for Cancer Prevention and Screening was established at the National Cancer Centre in October 2003. This and other initiatives will build on the progress of the past 20 years but it is generally agreed that there is still have a long way to go.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

[Participation rate and related socio-demographic factors in the national cancer screening program].

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death and one of the largest burdens of disease in Korea. In 1996, the 'Ten year Plan for Cancer Control' was formulated and the government then adopted the plan as a national policy. As part of this plan, the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for Medicaid recipients was formulated, and the government adapted this in 1999. For low-income beneficiaries of the National Health Insurance Corporation (NHIC), the screening program has been in place since 2002. In 2002, the target cancers of NCSP were stomach, breast and cervical cancer. This study was conducted to examine the relationships between the participation rate, the abnormal screening rate and the socio-demographic factors associated with participation in the screening program. METHODS: To analyze the participation rate and abnormal rate for the NCSP, we used the 2002 NCSP records. The information on the socio-demographic factors was available from the database of the beneficiaries in the NHIC and Medicaid. RESULTS: The participation rate of the Medicaid beneficiaries for the stomach, breast and cervical cancer screening were 9.2%, 15.5% and 15.0%, respectively, and 11.3% and 12.5%, except cervical cancer which wasn't be included in the NCSP, for the beneficiaries of the NHIC. The abnormal rate of stomach, breast and cervical cancer screening were 25.7%, 11.2% and 21.0%, respectively, for the beneficiaries of Medicaid and 42.6% and 19.4% for the beneficiaries of the NHIC. On the multiple logistic regression analysis, gender, age and place of residence were significantly associated with participation rates of the NCSP. For stomach cancer, women participated in the NCSP more than men. The participation rate was higher among people in their fifties and sixties than for those people in their forties and those people over seventy years in age. For the breast and cervical cancer, people in their fifties were more likely to participate in the NCSP than people in their forties and people over sixty. For the place of residence, people in the rural areas participated more than those people in any other places. CONCLUSIONS: The above results show that the participation rate and abnormal rate were significantly associated with the socio-demographic factors. To improve the participation rate for the NCSP, more attention should be given to the underserved groups.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The potential role of breast ductoscopy in breast cancer screening.

Breast cancer remains the most common malignancy among women in the Western world. Mammography, which is currently the main screening modality for early detection, has a low positive predictive value of only 25%, especially in young women with very dense breasts. Therefore, new screening approaches are needed for the early detection of breast cancer in all age groups. Mammary ductoscopy (MD) is a newly developed endoscopic technique that allows direct visualization and biopsy of the mammary ductal epithelium where most cancers originate. The procedure can be performed under local anesthesia in the office setting. At present, MD is used as a diagnostic adjunct in patients with pathological nipple discharge and to guide duct excision surgery. This article focuses on the potential of this technique in breast cancer screening and highlights its limitations in this context.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed1999

Breast cancer screening.

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in the United States; however, recent data demonstrates a decline in the mortality rate, which may be attributed to early detection from screening programs combined with effective therapies for early stage disease. As a result of the prevalence of breast cancer and its association with highly emotional issues, screening recommendations have aroused debate in the scientific, public, and legislative domains. A general consensus supports breast cancer screening among women between the ages of 50 and 70; however, much controversy exists regarding screening for women age 40 to 49 or above age 70. This article explores the issues involved in determining breast cancer screening recommendations among asymptomatic women with average risk in the United States.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Cancer screening among Korean Americans.

PURPOSE: Cancer is a leading cause of death among Korean Americans (KAs), one of the most rapidly growing ethnic minority communities in the United States. An understanding about cancer screening practices among Koreans (Ks) living in Korea can be useful in designing culturally sensitive health promotion programs in the United States. The purpose of this study was to describe the cancer screening knowledge and behaviors of a sample of KAs in Los Angeles, California, compared with a similar sample of Ks in Korea. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: This descriptive survey used a convenience sample of 140 KAs age 40 and older, living in Los Angeles, California, in 1998. A random sample of 149 Ks from Pusan, Korea, in 1995 to 1996 was used as a comparison group. KAs had lived in the United States for an average of 15 years. A Korean and English language 58-item self-administered questionnaire assessed knowledge of cancer screening tests and personal cancer screening practices. RESULTS: The findings demonstrate that both KAs and Ks had low participation in cancer screening. Breast cancer screening was significantly more likely among KA women than among Ks; screening rates for cervical cancer and gastrointestinal malignancies were not significantly different between the two groups. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These data can be used to assist healthcare professionals in the development of educational tools and strategies for promoting cancer screening programs for KAs. The unique contribution of this study was the opportunity to compare findings from an immigrant Korean population with a similar population in the country of origin.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Race, gender, and colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in asymptomatic, average-risk populations can reduce mortality and incidence of CRC. The United States Preventive Services Task Force, the American Cancer Society, and the Multi-Society Task Force all recommend initiation of screening at the age of 50 yr for men and women of all races, with an identical menu of screening options. However, there are important differences in risk based on gender, race, and ethnicity. These differences could influence the timing of initiation of screening, and the most optimal form of screening test. This commentary discusses the basis for these differences, and proposes that we should consider customization of screening based on gender, race, and ethnicity.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Barriers to cancer screening.

Many barriers to cancer screening have been summarized and discussed. Barriers have been documented in all patient populations, but some groups such as ethnic minorities and the elderly face unique barriers. The barriers to cancer screening, are multifactorial, but much of the responsibility for change must lie with health care providers and the health care delivery industry. This is not to free the patient of all responsibility, but some significant barriers are beyond their direct control. Take, for example, socioeconomic status, disease knowledge, and culturally related perceptions and myths about cancer detection and treatment. The health care industry must do a better job identifying and overcoming these barriers. The significant effects of provider counseling and advice must not be underestimated. Patients must first be advised, and then further actions must be taken if they reject the screening advice. Did they refuse adherence to recommendations because they do not view themselves as susceptible, because of overwhelming personal barriers, or because of a fatalistic attitude toward cancer detection and treatment? If that is the case, physicians and health care institutions must attempt to change perceptions, educate, and personalize the message so that patients accept their disease susceptibility [table: see text]. Multiple patient and provider risk factors have been identified that can be used to target patients particularly at high risk for inadequate cancer screening and providers at high risk for performing inadequate screening. Research has clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions to improve tracking of patient and physician compliance with screening recommendations. Further research is needed to show the impact of managed-care penetration and payer status on screening efforts, and incentive schemes need to be tested that reward institutions and third-party payers who develop uniform standards and procedures for cancer screening. The greatest responsibility lies with medical and health care institutions and those who determine the priorities of these institutions. Patient and physician barriers to mass cancer screening can be addressed by institutional support. If the quality of care delivered by providers, group practices, managed-care organizations, and HMOs is assessed with priority given to the regularity and consistency with which basic screening procedures are performed, cancer screening will undoubtedly receive greater attention in the clinic. Medical institutions must collaborate to develop standards for cancer screening with attention to the cost-effectiveness of various screening techniques to determine how limited resources can best be spent in cancer control. Such efforts should keep in mind "that a very small change implemented over a broad population may have a greater effect in absolute numbers than a large level of change applied in a small segment of the population."

Cultural Characteristics↗
PubMed1995

Chest X-ray screening improves outcome in lung cancer. A reappraisal of randomized trials on lung cancer screening.

It is believed that population-based screening for cancer should be advocated only when screening reduces disease-specific mortality. Four randomized controlled studies on lung cancer screening have been conducted in male cigarette smokers, and none has demonstrated reduced mortality. Accordingly, no organization that formulates screening policy advocates any specific early detection strategies for lung cancer. Yet, despite this public policy against screening, there is considerable evidence that chest x-ray screening is associated with earlier detection and improved survival. Two randomized trials, the Memorial Sloan-Kettering and Johns Hopkins Lung Projects, were specifically designed to evaluate the effectiveness of sputum cytologic study. Both evaluated the efficacy of the addition of sputum cytologic studies to annual chest radiographs, and both demonstrated that cytologic study did not favorably influence outcome. All individuals in experimental and control groups in both studies had annual chest radiographs. Because survival rates observed in both studies were about three times higher than predicted, based either on the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database or based on the American Cancer Society's annual Cancer Statistics, raises the possibility that the periodic chest radiographs performed in all patients in both studies contributed to an improved outcome. In the Mayo Lung Project and in the Czechoslovak study on lung cancer screening, the experimental groups underwent a program of relatively intensive and regular rescreening with chest radiographs and sputum cytologic study, while the control groups underwent either less-frequent rescreening or no rescreening. In both studies, the screened groups achieved meaningful improvements in stage distribution, resectability, and survival. However, increases in cumulative incidence of lung cancer in the experimental group in both studies (which in the Mayo Lung Project reached statistical significance) prevented significant improvements in survival from translating into corresponding reductions in mortality. The possibility that screening may be associated with lung cancer "overdiagnosis" has been widely postulated to account for higher survival and incidence rates and equivalent mortality rates. However, analysis of autopsy information and of disease outcome in individuals with screen-detected early stage lung cancer who do not undergo surgical resection strongly supports the conclusion that screening does not lead to overdiagnosis of lung cancer. Similarly, lead-time and length bias do not adequately account for the differences in cumulative incidence observed in the Mayo and Czech studies.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Bias↗
PubMed1999

Colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer is an important problem in the United States, with over 130,000 new cases and 55,000 deaths each year. There is now strong evidence that screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood testing can decrease mortality, and additional evidence that removing benign adenomas can decrease cancer incidence. Evidence-based screening guidelines depend on colorectal cancer risk. Individuals at higher risk because of a personal or family history deserve more intensive screening than asymptomatic individuals over age 50.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗
PubMed2004

SESy-Europe: a multi-language database dedicated to cancer screening monitoring.

Cancer is the second cause of death in developed countries. Many efforts to educate the public to more tumor free life-style and screening practice have been therefore adopted. Considering the high costs of diagnostic procedures and educational programs a cancer prevention/screening practice monitoring system is required to reduce costs, to assist health making policy decisions, and to tailor more targeted interventions whenever indicated. We, therefore, realized a computerized data-base able to assist medical personnel in health intervention monitoring and making policy at community level with a focus on the European region. An international medical board provided the translation of medical-related contents in English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Rumanian, Spanish and Turkish. The electronic system recognizes and finds relationships between screening events or secondary prevention tests and various causes of medical examinations (symptoms, diseases, professions, presence and type of health insurance, sex, age, medical history, family history, educational level, knowledge about cancer screening and prevention, patient location, type of community, region of provenance, etc). Due to its multi-language standardized characteristics its application may bridge European countries in cancer screening monitoring policy.

Computers↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Update on prostate cancer screening.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of death in men; it is diagnosed in about 1 in 10 men. Significant risk factors include, but are not limited to, race and age; the peak age at diagnosis is the seventh decade. A through screening program, sensitive to the risk factors and targeted to patients with curable prostate cancer, can decrease the rates of mortality and morbidity associated with this disease, without overtreating patients who have latent cancer. Screening methods include annual digital rectal examinations and prostate-specific antigen tests. Staging is important when treatment options are considered and treatment morbidity rate is weighed against disease mortality rate. Research concerning genetics changes and chemoprevention trials of vitamins and hormonal agents are targeted toward primary prevention. Implications for practice should include primary prevention, screening and detection, public education, and monitoring of the disease.

Aged↗