|
| ||
|
|
||
Breast Cancer Screening (breast + cancer_screening)
Terms modified by Breast Cancer Screening Selected AbstractsRole of the Clinical Breast Examination in Breast Cancer ScreeningJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 7 2001Does This Patient Have Breast Cancer? QUESTION: The authors, in an article for the JAMA section on the rational clinical examination, consider the evidence on whether and how to use clinical breast examination as a cancer screening technique. BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a common disease, particularly in older women. The authors note that by age 70 the annual incidence of breast cancer is one in 200 women. Breast cancer survival is strongly influenced by the stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis. As a result, it is important to consider how best to screen for this disease. In recent years there has been considerable attention in the clinical literature and in the popular media paid to the screening strategies of breast self-examination and of screening mammography, but somewhat less to the potential role of the breast examination by the healthcare provider. In actual clinical practice, the same woman may be the recipient of any, none, or all of these screening modalities. The best way to combine these screening strategies, particularly in the case of the older woman, remains a subject of some uncertainty and controversy. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from a MEDLINE search of the English-language literature for 1966 through 1997 and additional articles as identified by the authors. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: In their evaluation of the effectiveness of clinical breast examination, the authors included both controlled trials and case-controlled studies in which clinical breast examination was used as a component of the screening. Study of breast examination technique considered both clinical studies and studies using silicone breast models. DATA EXTRACTION: The combined data from the trials included information on approximately 200,000 women who received a breast cancer screening intervention (mammography and/or clinical breast examination). However, none of the studies made the direct comparison of a group receiving clinical breast examination as a sole intervention with a control group that did not receive any screening. Data on the utility of clinical breast examination were partially derived from studies where that screening modality was used in combination with mammography. MAIN RESULTS: A number of trials of cancer screening have demonstrated a reduction in mortality from the use of mammography and clinical breast examination as combined screening strategies compared with no screening, with the inference that the reduction in mortality comes from the earlier detection of breast cancer. The percentage of the detected cancers that are detected in the trials by clinical breast examination despite having been missed on mammography varies across the trials from a low of 3% of the detected cancers to a high of 45%. It is speculative whether the marginal contribution of clinical breast examination to the mortality reduction in these screening trials corresponds to the percentage of cancers detected by clinical breast examination alone. In most of the clinical trials, the technique of breast examination reportedly was not well described. It is unclear therefore how much the technique of breast examination used varied within and among the clinical trials. Data from studies using examinations of breast models made of silicone demonstrated that test performance accuracy correlated with a lengthier breast examination, better breast examination technique, and perhaps with examiner experience. The report includes data from six comparator studies and from two demonstration projects. Of the six comparator studies, four compared a screened population with an unscreened population and two compared different intensities of screening strategies. None of the eight clinical trials was directed to a geriatric population and in fact older women were excluded by upper age entry criteria from the six comparator studies. (The upper age limit for study entry in the six comparator studies varied from 49 to 64.) CONCLUSION: The authors drew on the pooled results of these eight studies to conclude that clinical breast examination has a sensitivity of 54% (95% confidence interval, 48.3,59.8) and a specificity of 94% (95% confidence interval, 90.2,96.9). The authors conclude that screening clinical breast examination should be done for women age older than 40. [source] How to Restore Public Trust about Breast Cancer Screening?THE BREAST JOURNAL, Issue 1 2010Access to Care, An Opportunity to Reinforce the Need for Further Advances in Science, Technology No abstract is available for this article. [source] A Survey of the Emergency Department Population and Their Interest in Preventive Health EducationACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 2 2003Ingrid Llovera MD Abstract Objective: To determine which preventive health information the emergency department (ED) population (patients and visitors) would be most interested in having available to them while they spend time in the waiting area. Methods: This was a prospective survey of consecutive adults seated in the ED waiting area during a representative week on predetermined shifts. The survey asked them to indicate whether they would be interested in obtaining information about the following preventive health issues: breast cancer, prostate cancer, smoking, obesity, stress reduction, exercise programs, alcohol/drugs, HIV, blood pressure screening, immunizations, referrals to primary care physicians, Pap smears, car safety, smoke detectors, domestic and youth violence, depression, gun safety, and safe sex. Results: Of the 1,284 subjects approached, 878 (68%) made up the study group (56% female, mean age = 44 years, 60% white); 406 refused. The information people were most interested in obtaining was the following: 52% of the respondents were interested in referral to stress reduction programs, 51% in information about exercise programs, 42% in blood pressure screening, 40% in information about breast cancer screening, 33% in depression information/screening, 33% in prostate cancer screening, 26% in immunization against pneumococcus, 24% in immunization against tetanus, 26% in smoking cessation programs, and 26% in safe driving information. Women were most interested in breast cancer screening (64%); and men, in prostate cancer screening (55%). Conclusions: Of the 878 subjects in the study group, 96% were interested in obtaining information about one or more preventive health issues. An opportunity exists to respond to this interest by providing material for public health education in the waiting area of EDs. [source] Breast cancer risk is not increased in individuals with TWIST1 mutation confirmed Saethre,Chotzen syndrome: An Australian multicenter studyGENES, CHROMOSOMES AND CANCER, Issue 7 2009Paul A. James Saethre-Chotzen syndrome (SCS) is a rare autosomal dominant syndrome involving craniosynostosis, craniofacial abnormalities, and syndactyly. A recent Scandinavian study reported an increased risk of breast cancer in individuals with a clinical diagnosis of SCS. Because of the potential importance of this finding, we organized a multicenter study enrolling people with TWIST1 mutation confirmed SCS to determine if an increased risk of cancer is present. This study did not identify any cases of breast or ovarian cancer in a cohort of equivalent power to that reported previously. These results provide clinical reassurance that at present there is no evidence for breast cancer screening above standard practice for individuals with SCS. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy, reproductive history and risk of colorectal cancer in womenINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, Issue 3 2008Geoffrey C. Kabat Abstract Evidence from epidemiologic studies suggests a possible role of exogenous and endogenous hormones in colorectal carcinogenesis in women. However, with respect to exogenous hormones, in contrast to hormone replacement therapy, few cohort studies have examined oral contraceptive use in relation to colorectal cancer risk. We used data from a large cohort study of Canadian women enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer screening to assess the association of oral contraceptive use, hormone replacement therapy and reproductive factors with risk of colorectal cancer, overall and by subsite within the colorectum. Cancer incidence and mortality were ascertained by linkage to national databases. Among 89,835 women aged 40,59 at enrollment and followed for an average of 16.4 years, we identified 1,142 incident colorectal cancer cases. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate the associations between the exposures of interest and risk of colorectal cancer. Ever use of oral contraceptives at baseline was associated with a modest reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73,0.94), with similar effects for different subsites within the colorectum. No trend was seen in the hazard ratios with increasing duration of oral contraceptive use. No associations were seen with use of hormone replacement therapy (ever use or duration of use) or reproductive factors. Our results are suggestive of an inverse association between oral contraceptive use and colorectal carcinogenesis. However, given the lack of a dose,response relationship and the potential for confounding, studies with more complete assessment of exogenous hormone use throughout the life course are needed to clarify this association. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] A decision theory perspective on why women do or do not decide to have cancer screening: systematic reviewJOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, Issue 6 2009Kelly Ackerson Abstract Title.,A decision theory perspective on why women do or do not decide to have cancer screening: systematic review. Aim., This paper is a report of a review in which decision theory from economics and psychology was applied to understand why some women with access to care do not seek cancer screening. Background., Mammography and cervical smear testing are effective modes of cancer screening, yet many women choose not to be screened. Nurses need to understand the reasons behind women's choices to improve adherence. Data sources., Research papers published between January 1994 and November 2008 were identified using the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE and PsycINFO data bases. The search was performed using the following terms: cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, decision, choice, adherence and framing. Forty-seven papers were identified and reviewed for relevance to the search criteria. Methods., Nineteen papers met the search criteria. For each paper, reasons for obtaining or not obtaining cancer screening were recorded, and organized into four relevant decision theory principles: emotions, Prospect Theory, optimism bias and framing. Findings., All women have fears and uncertainty, but the sources of their fears differ, producing two main decision scenarios. Non-adherence results when women fear medical examinations, providers, tests and procedures, do not have/seek knowledge about risk and frame their current health as the status quo. Adherence is achieved when women fear cancer, but trust care providers, seek knowledge, understand risk and frame routine care as the status quo. Conclusion., Nurses need to address proactively women's perceptions and knowledge about screening by openly and uniformly discussing the importance and benefits. [source] Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case-study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screeningJOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY: SERIES A (STATISTICS IN SOCIETY), Issue 4 2008N. J. Welton Summary., We investigate whether Bayesian decision theory, in the form of expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) analysis, is a realistic and practical approach to research prioritization. We develop a simple cost-effectiveness analysis of breast cancer screening as a typical case-study, motivated by data from a cluster randomized 2 × 2 factorial trial of interventions to increase uptake. An EVPPI analysis is developed which shows that, on the basis of the evidence that was available beforehand, the trial was cost effective, but that after incorporating the results of the trial it would still be cost effective to carry out research that further reduced decision uncertainty. We identify key conceptual and technical issues: the relationship between the target interventions and the previous evidence, the distinction between variation and uncertainty and methods for correlated parameters. EVPPI methods have clear advantages over current methods of research prioritization, but we suggest that some specific sensitivity analyses are required before they can be used confidently in practice. These have limitations, and there is a need to develop robust methods to optimize research portfolios. [source] Cost and cost-effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in AustraliaAUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 5 2009Shuhong Wang Abstract Objective: A systematic review assessed the relative safety and effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography. This study utilised the evidence from the review to examine the economic value of digital compared with film-screen mammography in Australia. Methods: A cost-comparison analysis between the two technologies was conducted for the overall population for the purposes of breast cancer screening and diagnosis. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for the screening subgroups where digital mammography was considered to be more accurate than film-screen mammography. Results: Digital mammography in a screening setting is $11 more per examination than film-screen mammography, and $36 or $33 more per examination in a diagnostic setting when either digital radiography or computed radiography is used. In both the screening and diagnostic settings, the throughput of the mammography system had the most significant impact on decreasing the incremental cost/examination/year of digital mammography. Conclusion: Digital mammography is more expensive than film-screen mammography. Whether digital mammography represents good value for money depends on the eventual life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained from the early cancer diagnosis. Implications: The evidence generated from this study has informed the allocation of public resources for the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer in Australia. [source] Low rates of colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening in Asian Americans compared with non-Hispanic whitesCANCER, Issue 1 2006Cultural influences or access to care? Abstract BACKGROUND Asian Americans have lower cancer screening rates compared with non-Hispanic whites (NHWs). Little is known about mechanisms that underlie disparities in cancer screening. The objectives of the current study were 1) to determine the relation between nativity, years in the United States, language, and cancer screening in NHWs and Asian Americans, independent of access to care and 2) to determine whether Asians reported different reasons than NHWs for not obtaining cancer screening. METHODS This population-based study included 36,660 NHWs, 1298 Chinese, 944 Filipinos, 803 Koreans, 857 Vietnamese, and 1036 Other Asians from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey. The main study outcomes were 1) self-reported colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening and 2) reasons for not obtaining cancer screening. RESULTS After adjusting for access to care, several Asian subgroups still had significantly lower rates of all types of cancer screening compared with NHWs. Adjusting for nativity, years in the United States, and English language attenuated the relation between Asian ethnicity and lower rates of colorectal and breast cancer screening. When they were asked what the most important reason was for not having each screening test, foreign-born Asians were significantly more likely than United States-born NHWs to report that they "didn't have problems/symptoms" (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS Nativity, years in the United States, and English language may be markers of cultural differences that are mediating cancer screening disparities. Foreign-born Asians may believe that cancer screening is in response to symptoms rather than tests that are used prior to the development of symptoms. Health education messages must consider how to communicate effectively that "cancer screening is valuable, because it finds cancer before it is advanced enough to cause symptoms." Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society. [source] Cost-effective mammography screening in Korea: High incidence of breast cancer in young womenCANCER SCIENCE, Issue 6 2009Soon Young Lee The epidemiological characteristics of breast cancer in Korean women are different from the characteristics reported in Western women. The highest incidence rate occurs in Korean women in their 40s. The purpose of this study was to determine the most cost-effective screening interval and target age range for Korean women from the perspective of the national healthcare system. A stochastic model was used to simulate breast cancer screenings by varying both the screening intervals and the age ranges. The effectiveness of mammography screening was defined as the probability of detecting breast cancer in the preclinical state and the cost was based on the direct cost of mammography screening and the confirmative tests. The age-specific mean sojourn times and the sensitivity of the mammography were applied in the stochastic model. An optimal cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and lifetime schedule sensitivity. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess parameter uncertainty. The selected cost-effective strategies were: (1) the current biennial mammography screenings for women who are at least 40 years old; (2) biennial screening for women between the ages of 35 and 75 years; and (3) a combination strategy consisting of biennial screening for women aged between 45 and 54 years, and 3-year interval screening for women aged between 40 and 44 years and 55 and 65 years. Further studies should follow to investigate the effectiveness of mammography screening in women younger than 40 years in Asia as well as in Korea. (Cancer Sci 2009; 100: 1105,1111) [source] | ||||||||||