Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.
Doubeni, Chyke A; Gabler, Nicole B; Wheeler, Cosette M; McCarthy, Anne Marie; Castle, Philip E; Halm, Ethan A; Schnall, Mitchell D; Skinner, Celette S; Tosteson, Anna N A; Weaver, Donald L; Vachani, Anil; Mehta, Shivan J; Rendle, Katharine A; Fedewa, Stacey A; Corley, Douglas A; Armstrong, Katrina.
Afiliação
  • Doubeni CA; Chair and The Presidential Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Gabler NB; Senior Research Investigator, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Wheeler CM; Professor of Pathology, Department of Pathology, and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico Health Science Center, Albuquerque, NM.
  • McCarthy AM; Assistant in Epidemiology, General Medicine Division, MA General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
  • Castle PE; Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
  • Halm EA; Professor of Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Professor of Clinical Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
  • Schnall MD; Chair and The Eugene P. Pendergrass Professor of Radiology, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Section, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Skinner CS; Parkland Community Medicine Professor, Department of Clinical Sciences and Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
  • Tosteson ANA; James J. Carroll Professor, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH.
  • Weaver DL; Professor of Pathology, Department of Pathology, UVM Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
  • Vachani A; Assistant Professor of Medicine, Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Mehta SJ; Assistant Professor of Medicine and Health Policy, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine and Penn Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Rendle KA; Assistant Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Fedewa SA; Screening and Risk Factor Surveillance, Surveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
  • Corley DA; Research Scientist III, Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, CA.
  • Armstrong K; Clinical Professor of Medicine, San Francisco Medical, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Francisco, CA.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 68(3): 199-216, 2018 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29603147
Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente / Detecção Precoce de Câncer / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: CA Cancer J Clin Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente / Detecção Precoce de Câncer / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: CA Cancer J Clin Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Estados Unidos