The Experts below are selected from a list of 205542 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Renato V. Larocca - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
validity of self reported smoking status among participants in a lung Cancer Screening trial
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2006Co-Authors: Jamie L Studts, Jaime L Gill, Christina R Studts, Scott A Lajoie, Michael A. Andrykowski, Chris N Barnes, Sameer R Ghate, Renato V. LaroccaAbstract:Lung Cancer remains a devastating disease associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Recent research has suggested that lung Cancer Screening with spiral computed tomography scans might reduce lung Cancer mortality. Studies of lung Cancer Screening have also suggested that significant numbers of participants quit smoking after Screening. However, most have relied solely on self-reported smoking behavior, which may be less accurate among participants in lung Cancer Screening. To assess the validity of self-reported smoking status among participants in a lung Cancer Screening trial, this study compared self-reported smoking status against urinary cotinine levels. The sample included 55 consecutive participants enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing annual spiral computed tomography and chest X-ray for lung Cancer Screening. Participants were a mean of 59 years of age and predominantly Caucasian (96%) and male (55%). Self-reported smoking status was assessed before and after participants learned of the purpose of the biochemical verification study. Using urinary cotinine as the “gold standard,” the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported smoking status were 91% and 95%, respectively ( κ = 0.85, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-0.99). Total misclassification rate was 7%. However, three of the four misclassified participants reported concurrent use of nicotine replacement strategies. Eliminating these cases from the analysis revealed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 95% ( κ = 0.96, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.88-1.00). In conclusion, self-reported smoking status among participants in a lung Cancer Screening trial was highly consistent with urinary cotinine test results. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10):1825–8)
-
validity of self reported smoking status among participants in a lung Cancer Screening trial
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2006Co-Authors: Jamie L Studts, Jaime L Gill, Christina R Studts, Scott A Lajoie, Michael A. Andrykowski, Chris N Barnes, Sameer R Ghate, Renato V. LaroccaAbstract:Lung Cancer remains a devastating disease associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Recent research has suggested that lung Cancer Screening with spiral computed tomography scans might reduce lung Cancer mortality. Studies of lung Cancer Screening have also suggested that significant numbers of participants quit smoking after Screening. However, most have relied solely on self-reported smoking behavior, which may be less accurate among participants in lung Cancer Screening. To assess the validity of self-reported smoking status among participants in a lung Cancer Screening trial, this study compared self-reported smoking status against urinary cotinine levels. The sample included 55 consecutive participants enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing annual spiral computed tomography and chest X-ray for lung Cancer Screening. Participants were a mean of 59 years of age and predominantly Caucasian (96%) and male (55%). Self-reported smoking status was assessed before and after participants learned of the purpose of the biochemical verification study. Using urinary cotinine as the “gold standard,” the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported smoking status were 91% and 95%, respectively ( κ = 0.85, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-0.99). Total misclassification rate was 7%. However, three of the four misclassified participants reported concurrent use of nicotine replacement strategies. Eliminating these cases from the analysis revealed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 95% ( κ = 0.96, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval = 0.88-1.00). In conclusion, self-reported smoking status among participants in a lung Cancer Screening trial was highly consistent with urinary cotinine test results. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10):1825–8)
Otis W. Brawley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cancer Screening in the united states 2013 a review of current american Cancer society guidelines current issues in Cancer Screening and new guidance on cervical Cancer Screening and lung Cancer Screening
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2013Co-Authors: Robert A Smith, Durado Brooks, Vilma Cokkinides, Debbie Saslow, Otis W. BrawleyAbstract:Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its recommendations for early Cancer detection, a report on data and trends in Cancer Screening rates, and select issues related to Cancer Screening. In this issue of the journal, current ACS Cancer Screening guidelines are summarized, as are updated guidelines on cervical Cancer Screening and lung Cancer Screening with low-dose helical computed tomography. The latest data on the use of Cancer Screening from the National Health Interview Survey also are described, as are several issues related to Screening coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
-
Cancer Screening in the united states 2010 a review of current american Cancer society guidelines and issues in Cancer Screening
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2010Co-Authors: Robert A Smith, Durado Brooks, Vilma Cokkinides, Debbie Saslow, Otis W. BrawleyAbstract:Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its recommendations for early Cancer detection, a report on data and trends in Cancer Screening rates, and select issues related to Cancer Screening. In 2010, the ACS updated its guidelines for testing for early prostate Cancer detection, and during 2009 there were several newsworthy updates in the Cancer Screening guidelines from other organizations. In this article, the current ACS guidelines and recent issues are summarized, updates of guidelines for testing for early breast Cancer detection by the US Preventive Services Task Force and for prevention and early detection of cervical Cancer from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are addressed, and the most recent data from the National Health Interview Survey pertaining to participation rates in Cancer Screening are described.
-
Prostate Cancer Screening; Is This a Teachable Moment?
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009Co-Authors: Otis W. BrawleyAbstract:In this issue of the Journal, Welch and Albertsen ( 1 ) presented information that every man considering prostate Cancer Screening and treatment should know and understand. Prostate Cancer Screening has resulted in substantial overdiagnosis and in unnecessary treatment. It may have saved relatively few lives. Results from this article and recent results from prostate Cancer Screening and prevention trials demand reflection about what we as a society have done and are doing. Lessons to be learned have ethical and economic implications and involve our lack of respect for the scientific process and scientific evidence. As I sat down to write this editorial, I heard a radio commercial that brings perspective to the issue. A local celebrity was promoting prostate Cancer awareness. He said, “Prostate Cancer is 100% curable when caught early.” He encouraged all men to get screened and announced that a van was touring the area offering Screening in supermarket parking lots. This was a community service project sponsored by the radio station, the supermarket chain, and a radiation oncology practice. A commercial like this plays to our fears and prejudices. All of us have been taught from an early age that the best way to deal with Cancer is to fi nd it early. With the development of the prostate-specifi c antigen test, prostate Cancer Screening and early detection efforts surged in the United States in the late 1980s and
Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
population based Cancer Screening programmes in low income and middle income countries regional consultation of the international Cancer Screening network in india
Lancet Oncology, 2018Co-Authors: Sudha Sivaram, Gautam Majumdar, Douglas Puricelli M Perin, Ashrafun Nessa, Mireille J M Broeders, Elsebeth Lynge, Mona Saraiya, Nereo Segnan, Rengaswamy SankaranarayananAbstract:Summary The reductions in Cancer morbidity and mortality afforded by population-based Cancer Screening programmes have led many low-income and middle-income countries to consider the implementation of national Screening programmes in the public sector. Screening at the population level, when planned and organised, can greatly benefit the population, whilst disorganised Screening can increase costs and reduce benefits. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) was created to share lessons, experience, and evidence regarding Cancer Screening in countries with organised Screening programmes. Organised Screening programmes provide Screening to an identifiable target population and use multidisciplinary delivery teams, coordinated clinical oversight committees, and regular review by a multidisciplinary evaluation board to maximise benefit to the target population. In this Series paper, we report outcomes of the first regional consultation of the ICSN held in Agartala, India (Sept 5–7, 2016), which included discussions from Cancer Screening programmes from Denmark, the Netherlands, USA, and Bangladesh. We outline six essential elements of population-based Cancer Screening programmes, and share recommendations from the meeting that policy makers might want to consider before implementation.
Robert A Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a note on the design of Cancer Screening trials
Journal of Medical Screening, 2015Co-Authors: Stephen W Duffy, Robert A SmithAbstract:ObjectivesTo investigate the consequences of different Cancer Screening trial designs and follow-up options for accuracy of the estimate of the effect of Screening on disease-specific mortality.MethodsWe consider a randomized trial of breast Cancer Screening with a Screening phase in which the intervention group is offered Screening and the control group is not, and optional further follow-up after this Screening phase. Postulating a lead time effect similar to that observed in breast Cancer Screening trials, we calculate the observed relative risk of disease-specific mortality and compare this with the true relative risk, for four design options: (1) no follow-up beyond the Screening phase, ie. the Screening phase and the observation period are identical; (2) follow-up continuing beyond the Screening phase, all Cancer-specific deaths counted, including those diagnosed after the Screening phase; (3) follow-up continuing beyond the Screening phase, but with only deaths from Cancers diagnosed during the scr...
-
Cancer Screening in the united states 2013 a review of current american Cancer society guidelines current issues in Cancer Screening and new guidance on cervical Cancer Screening and lung Cancer Screening
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2013Co-Authors: Robert A Smith, Durado Brooks, Vilma Cokkinides, Debbie Saslow, Otis W. BrawleyAbstract:Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its recommendations for early Cancer detection, a report on data and trends in Cancer Screening rates, and select issues related to Cancer Screening. In this issue of the journal, current ACS Cancer Screening guidelines are summarized, as are updated guidelines on cervical Cancer Screening and lung Cancer Screening with low-dose helical computed tomography. The latest data on the use of Cancer Screening from the National Health Interview Survey also are described, as are several issues related to Screening coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
-
toward standardizing and reporting colorectal Cancer Screening indicators on an international level the international colorectal Cancer Screening network
International Journal of Cancer, 2012Co-Authors: Victoria S Benson, Julietta Patnick, Wendy Atkin, Jane Green, Marion R Nadel, Robert A Smith, Patricia VillainAbstract:The International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network was established in 2003 to promote best practice in the delivery of organized colorectal Cancer Screening programs. To facilitate evaluation of such programs, we defined a set of universally applicable colorectal Cancer Screening measures and indicators. To test the feasibility of data collection, we requested data on these variables and basic program characteristics from 26 organized full programs and 9 pilot programs in 24 countries. The size of the target population for each program varied considerably from a few thousand to 36 million. The majority of programs used fecal occult blood tests for primary Screening, with more using guaiac than immunochemical tests. There was wide variation in the ability of Screening programs to report the requested measures and in the values reported. In general, pilot programs were more likely to provide Screening measure values than were full programs. As expected, detection rates for polyps and neoplasia were substantially higher in programs Screening with endoscopy than in those using fecal occult blood tests. It is hoped that the Screening measures and indicators, once revised in the light of this survey, will be adopted and used by existing programs and those in the early planning stages, allowing international comparison with the goal of improved colorectal Cancer Screening quality.
-
Cancer Screening in the united states 2010 a review of current american Cancer society guidelines and issues in Cancer Screening
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2010Co-Authors: Robert A Smith, Durado Brooks, Vilma Cokkinides, Debbie Saslow, Otis W. BrawleyAbstract:Each year the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a summary of its recommendations for early Cancer detection, a report on data and trends in Cancer Screening rates, and select issues related to Cancer Screening. In 2010, the ACS updated its guidelines for testing for early prostate Cancer detection, and during 2009 there were several newsworthy updates in the Cancer Screening guidelines from other organizations. In this article, the current ACS guidelines and recent issues are summarized, updates of guidelines for testing for early breast Cancer detection by the US Preventive Services Task Force and for prevention and early detection of cervical Cancer from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are addressed, and the most recent data from the National Health Interview Survey pertaining to participation rates in Cancer Screening are described.
William G Hocking - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
selection criteria for lung Cancer Screening
The New England Journal of Medicine, 2013Co-Authors: Martin C Tammemagi, Hormuzd A Katki, William G Hocking, Timothy R Church, Neil E Caporaso, Paul A Kvale, Anil K Chaturvedi, Gerard A Silvestri, Thomas L Riley, John ComminsAbstract:Background The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) used risk factors for lung Cancer (e.g., ≥30 pack-years of smoking and <15 years since quitting) as selection criteria for lung-Cancer Screening. Use of an accurate model that incorporates additional risk factors to select persons for Screening may identify more persons who have lung Cancer or in whom lung Cancer will develop. Methods We modified the 2011 lung-Cancer risk-prediction model from our Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial to ensure applicability to NLST data; risk was the probability of a diagnosis of lung Cancer during the 6-year study period. We developed and validated the model (PLCOM2012) with data from the 80,375 persons in the PLCO control and intervention groups who had ever smoked. Discrimination (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration were assessed. In the validation data set, 14,144 of 37,332 persons (37.9%) met NLST criteria. For comparison, 14,144 highest-risk...
-
lung Cancer Screening in the randomized prostate lung colorectal and ovarian plco Cancer Screening trial
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2010Co-Authors: William G Hocking, Paul A Kvale, John Commins, Martin M Oken, Stephen D Winslow, Philip C Prorok, Lawrence R Ragard, David A Lynch, Gerald L Andriole, Saundra S BuysAbstract:Background The 5-year overall survival rate of lung Cancer patients is approximately 15%. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease and have shorter survival rates than patients with early-stage disease. Although Screening for lung Cancer has the potential to increase early diagnosis, it has not been shown to reduce lung Cancer mortality rates. In 1993, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was initiated specifically to determine whether Screening would reduce mortality rates from PLCO Cancers. Methods A total of 77 464 participants, aged 55–74 years, were randomly assigned to the intervention arm of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial between November 8, 1993, and July 2, 2001. Participants received a baseline chest radiograph (CXR), followed by three annual single-view CXRs at the 10 US Screening centers. Cancers were classified as screen detected and nonscreen detected (interval or never screened) and according to tumor histology. The positivity rates of screen-detected Cancers and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. Because 51.6% of the participants were current or former smokers, logistic regression analysis was performed to control for smoking status. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Compliance with Screening decreased from 86.6% at baseline to 78.9% at the last Screening. Overall positivity rates were 8.9% at baseline and 6.6%–7.1% at subsequent Screenings; positivity rates increased modestly with smoking risk categories (Ptrend < .001). The PPVs for all participants were 2.0% at baseline and 1.1%, 1.5%, and 2.4% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively; PPVs in current smokers were 5.9% at baseline and 3.3%, 4.2%, and 5.6% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A total of 564 lung Cancers were diagnosed, of which 306 (54%) were screendetected Cancers and 87% were non–small cell lung Cancers. Among non–small cell lung Cancers, 59.6% of screen-detected Cancers and 33.3% of interval Cancers were early (I–II) stage. Conclusions The PLCO Cancer Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to recruit, retain, and screen a large population over multiple years at multiple centers. A higher proportion of screen-detected lung Cancers were early stage, but a conclusion on the effectiveness of CXR Screening must await final PLCO results, which are anticipated at the end of 2015.
