Estimating the Effects of Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice Settings: The Role of Selective Uptake and Suboptimal Adherence along the Cancer Screening Continuum.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Jennifer L Lund, M Patricia Rivera, I-Hsuan Su, Jason M Long, Xiaomeng Chen, Joyce Pak, Michael G Hudgens, Til Stürmer, Daniel S Reuland, Louise M Henderson
{"title":"Estimating the Effects of Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice Settings: The Role of Selective Uptake and Suboptimal Adherence along the Cancer Screening Continuum.","authors":"Jennifer L Lund, M Patricia Rivera, I-Hsuan Su, Jason M Long, Xiaomeng Chen, Joyce Pak, Michael G Hudgens, Til Stürmer, Daniel S Reuland, Louise M Henderson","doi":"10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-23-1491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard in determining efficacy of cancer screening tests. Yet, systematic differences between RCT and the general populations eligible for screening raise concerns about the generalizability and relevance of RCT findings to guide the development and dissemination of cancer screening programs. Observational studies from clinical practice settings have documented selective uptake in screening-i.e., variation across subgroups regarding who is screened and not screened-as well as suboptimal adherence to screening recommendations, including follow-up of positive findings with subsequent imaging studies and diagnostic invasive procedures. When the effectiveness of a screening intervention varies across subgroups, and there is selective uptake and suboptimal adherence to screening in clinical practice relative to that in the RCT, the effects of screening reported in RCTs are not expected to generalize to clinical practice settings. Understanding the impacts of selective uptake and suboptimal adherence on estimates of the effectiveness of cancer screening in clinical practice will generate evidence that can be used to inform future screening recommendations and enhance shared decision-making tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":9458,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"984-988"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11351907/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-23-1491","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard in determining efficacy of cancer screening tests. Yet, systematic differences between RCT and the general populations eligible for screening raise concerns about the generalizability and relevance of RCT findings to guide the development and dissemination of cancer screening programs. Observational studies from clinical practice settings have documented selective uptake in screening-i.e., variation across subgroups regarding who is screened and not screened-as well as suboptimal adherence to screening recommendations, including follow-up of positive findings with subsequent imaging studies and diagnostic invasive procedures. When the effectiveness of a screening intervention varies across subgroups, and there is selective uptake and suboptimal adherence to screening in clinical practice relative to that in the RCT, the effects of screening reported in RCTs are not expected to generalize to clinical practice settings. Understanding the impacts of selective uptake and suboptimal adherence on estimates of the effectiveness of cancer screening in clinical practice will generate evidence that can be used to inform future screening recommendations and enhance shared decision-making tools.

估算临床实践中癌症筛查的效果:癌症筛查过程中选择性接受和次优坚持的作用。
随机对照试验(RCT)是确定癌症筛查测试有效性的黄金标准。然而,随机对照试验与符合筛查条件的普通人群之间存在的系统性差异,使人们对随机对照试验结果在指导癌症筛查计划的制定和推广方面的普适性和相关性产生了担忧。来自临床实践环境的观察性研究记录了筛查的选择性接受情况--即不同亚组中接受筛查和未接受筛查的人群存在差异--以及筛查建议的次优遵守情况,包括对阳性结果进行后续影像学检查和诊断性侵入手术。如果筛查干预措施的有效性在不同亚组之间存在差异,并且在临床实践中存在选择性接受筛查和相对于 RCT 中的次优筛查,那么预计 RCT 中报告的筛查效果不会推广到临床实践环境中。了解临床实践中选择性接受筛查和次优坚持筛查对癌症筛查有效性估算的影响将产生证据,可用于为未来的筛查建议提供依据并加强共同决策工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.60%
发文量
538
审稿时长
1.6 months
期刊介绍: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention publishes original peer-reviewed, population-based research on cancer etiology, prevention, surveillance, and survivorship. The following topics are of special interest: descriptive, analytical, and molecular epidemiology; biomarkers including assay development, validation, and application; chemoprevention and other types of prevention research in the context of descriptive and observational studies; the role of behavioral factors in cancer etiology and prevention; survivorship studies; risk factors; implementation science and cancer care delivery; and the science of cancer health disparities. Besides welcoming manuscripts that address individual subjects in any of the relevant disciplines, CEBP editors encourage the submission of manuscripts with a transdisciplinary approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信