Search

Your search keyword '"Zauber, Ann"' showing total 435 results
Start Over Author "Zauber, Ann" Search Limiters Academic (Peer-Reviewed) Journals
435 results on '"Zauber, Ann"'

2. Prevalence of Gastric Precursor Lesions in Countries With Differential Gastric Cancer Burden: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author

Mülder, Duco T., Hahn, Anne I., Huang, Robert J., Zhou, Margaret J., Blake, Benjamin, Omofuma, Omonefe, Murphy, John D., Gutiérrez-Torres, Daniela S., Zauber, Ann G., O’Mahony, James F., Camargo, M. Constanza, Ladabaum, Uri, Yeh, Jennifer M., Hur, Chin, Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris, Meester, Reinier, and Laszkowska, Monika

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Combining Asian and European genome-wide association studies of colorectal cancer improves risk prediction across racial and ethnic populations

Author

Thomas, Minta, Su, Yu-Ru, Rosenthal, Elisabeth A., Sakoda, Lori C., Schmit, Stephanie L., Timofeeva, Maria N., Chen, Zhishan, Fernandez-Rozadilla, Ceres, Law, Philip J., Murphy, Neil, Carreras-Torres, Robert, Diez-Obrero, Virginia, van Duijnhoven, Franzel J. B., Jiang, Shangqing, Shin, Aesun, Wolk, Alicja, Phipps, Amanda I., Burnett-Hartman, Andrea, Gsur, Andrea, Chan, Andrew T., Zauber, Ann G., Wu, Anna H., Lindblom, Annika, Um, Caroline Y., Tangen, Catherine M., Gignoux, Chris, Newton, Christina, Haiman, Christopher A., Qu, Conghui, Bishop, D. Timothy, Buchanan, Daniel D., Crosslin, David R., Conti, David V., Kim, Dong-Hyun, Hauser, Elizabeth, White, Emily, Siegel, Erin, Schumacher, Fredrick R., Rennert, Gad, Giles, Graham G., Hampel, Heather, Brenner, Hermann, Oze, Isao, Oh, Jae Hwan, Lee, Jeffrey K., Schneider, Jennifer L., Chang-Claude, Jenny, Kim, Jeongseon, Huyghe, Jeroen R., Zheng, Jiayin, Hampe, Jochen, Greenson, Joel, Hopper, John L., Palmer, Julie R., Visvanathan, Kala, Matsuo, Keitaro, Matsuda, Koichi, Jung, Keum Ji, Li, Li, Le Marchand, Loic, Vodickova, Ludmila, Bujanda, Luis, Gunter, Marc J., Matejcic, Marco, Jenkins, Mark A., Slattery, Martha L., D’Amato, Mauro, Wang, Meilin, Hoffmeister, Michael, Woods, Michael O., Kim, Michelle, Song, Mingyang, Iwasaki, Motoki, Du, Mulong, Udaltsova, Natalia, Sawada, Norie, Vodicka, Pavel, Campbell, Peter T., Newcomb, Polly A., Cai, Qiuyin, Pearlman, Rachel, Pai, Rish K., Schoen, Robert E., Steinfelder, Robert S., Haile, Robert W., Vandenputtelaar, Rosita, Prentice, Ross L., Küry, Sébastien, Castellví-Bel, Sergi, Tsugane, Shoichiro, Berndt, Sonja I., Lee, Soo Chin, Brezina, Stefanie, Weinstein, Stephanie J., Chanock, Stephen J., Jee, Sun Ha, Kweon, Sun-Seog, Vadaparampil, Susan, Harrison, Tabitha A., Yamaji, Taiki, Keku, Temitope O., Vymetalkova, Veronika, Arndt, Volker, Jia, Wei-Hua, Shu, Xiao-Ou, Lin, Yi, Ahn, Yoon-Ok, Stadler, Zsofia K., Van Guelpen, Bethany, Ulrich, Cornelia M., Platz, Elizabeth A., Potter, John D., Li, Christopher I., Meester, Reinier, Moreno, Victor, Figueiredo, Jane C., Casey, Graham, Lansdorp Vogelaar, Iris, Dunlop, Malcolm G., Gruber, Stephen B., Hayes, Richard B., Pharoah, Paul D. P., Houlston, Richard S., Jarvik, Gail P., Tomlinson, Ian P., Zheng, Wei, Corley, Douglas A., Peters, Ulrike, and Hsu, Li

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. NordICC Trial Results in Line With Expected Colorectal Cancer Mortality Reduction After Colonoscopy: A Modeling Study

Author

Zauber, Ann G., Hahn, Anne I., Escudero, Fernando Alarid, Maerzluft, Christopher E., Katsara, Alexandra, Kuntz, Karen M., John, M.Inadomi, Collier, Nicholson, Ozik, Jonathan, van Duuren, Luuk A., van den Puttelaar, Rosita, Harlass, Matthias, Seguin, Claudia Leigh, Davidi, Barak, Pineda-Antunez, Carlos, Feuer, Eric J., de Jonge, Lucie, van den Berg, Danica M.N., Nascimento de Lima, Pedro, Knudsen, Amy B., Rutter, Carolyn M., Weinberg, David, and Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test

Author

Zauber, Ann G., Winawer, Sidney J., O’Brien, Michael J., Mills, Glenn M., Allen, John I., Feld, Andrew D., Jordan, Paul A., Fleisher, Martin, Orlow, Irene, Meester, Reinier G.S., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris, Rutter, Carolyn M., Knudsen, Amy B., Mandelson, Margaret, Shaukat, Aasma, Mendelsohn, Robin B., Hahn, Anne I., Lobaugh, Stephanie M., Soto Palmer, Brittany, Serrano, Victoria, Kumar, Julie R., Fischer, Sara E., Chen, Jennifer C., Bayuga-Miller, Sharon, Kuk, Deborah, O’Connell, Kelli, and Church, Timothy R.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. Bias due to coarsening of time intervals in the inference for the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

Author

Karmakar, Bikram, Zauber, Ann G, Hahn, Anne I, Lau, Yan Kwan, Doubeni, Chyke A, and Joffe, Marshall M

Subjects
*MEDICAL screening, *EARLY detection of cancer, *TREE graphs, *COLORECTAL cancer, *CONTINUOUS functions
Abstract

Background Observational studies are frequently used to estimate the comparative effectiveness of different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods due to the practical limitations and time needed to conduct large clinical trials. However, time-varying confounders, e.g. polyp detection in the last screening, can bias statistical results. Recently, generalized methods, or G-methods, have been used for the analysis of observational studies of CRC screening, given their ability to account for such time-varying confounders. Discretization, or the process of converting continuous functions into discrete counterparts, is required for G-methods when the treatment and outcomes are assessed at a continuous scale. Development This paper evaluates the interplay between time-varying confounding and discretization, which can induce bias in assessing screening effectiveness. We investigate this bias in evaluating the effect of different CRC screening methods that differ from each other in typical screening frequency. Application First, using theory, we establish the direction of the bias. Then, we use simulations of hypothetical settings to study the bias magnitude for varying levels of discretization, frequency of screening and length of the study period. We develop a method to assess possible bias due to coarsening in simulated situations. Conclusions The proposed method can inform future studies of screening effectiveness, especially for CRC, by determining the choice of interval lengths where data are discretized to minimize bias due to coarsening while balancing computational costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Cystic Fibrosis Colorectal Cancer Screening Consensus Recommendations

Author

Braid, Amy Leigh, Cullina, Joanne, Daggett, Anne, Fink, Aliza, Gini, Andrea, Hadjiliadis, Denis, Harron, Paul F., Jr., Hempstead, Sarah, Khoruts, Alexander, Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris, Lieberman, David, Liou, Theodore, Lomas, Paula, Lowenfels, Albert, Maisonneuve, Patrick, Marshall, Bruce, Meyer, Keith, Rustgi, Anil, Shaukat, Aasma, Zauber, Ann, Sabadosa, Kathy, Zauber, Ann G., Hempstead, Sarah E., and Lowenfels, Albert B.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. A Summary of the Fight Colorectal Cancer Working Meeting: Exploring Risk Factors and Etiology of Sporadic Early-Age Onset Colorectal Cancer

Author

Dwyer, Andrea J., Murphy, Caitlin C., Boland, C. Richard, Garcia, Reese, Hampel, Heather, Limburg, Paul, Lowery, Jan, Zauber, Ann G., Waring, Stephen, Worrall, Sharyn, Perea, Jose, Siegel, Rebecca, Lee, Jeffrey, Molmenti, Christine, Sears, Cynthia L., Buckhaults, Phillip, Hayes, Richard, Hussan, Hisham, de Miranda, Noel, Palles, Claire, Diaz, Luis, Song, Mingyang, Cercek, Andrea, Lieu, Christopher H., Patel, Swati G., Karlitz, Jordan J., Cao, Yin, Demb, Josh, Blatchford, Patrick, Risendal, Betsy, Staples, Elsa S., Wali, Anil, Daschner, Phil, Loomans-Kropp, Holli, Flores, R., Levell, Caleb L., Wehling, Karen, Martin, Jessica, Pesmen, Curt, Kuchar, Violet, Soisson, Ryan, Davis, Anjee, and Ahnen, Dennis

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. Critical Appraisal of Decision Models Used for the Economic Evaluation of Bladder Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.

Author

Mandrik, Olena, Hahn, Anne I., Catto, James W. F., Zauber, Ann G., Cumberbatch, Marcus, and Chilcott, James

Subjects
CANCER diagnosis, ECONOMIC models, BLADDER cancer, MEDICAL screening, SCIENCE databases, EARLY detection of cancer
Abstract

Background and Objective: Bladder cancer is common among current and former smokers. High bladder cancer mortality may be decreased through early diagnosis and screening. The aim of this study was to appraise decision models used for the economic evaluation of bladder cancer screening and diagnosis, and to summarise the main outcomes of these models. Methods: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Web of Science databases was systematically searched from January 2006 to May 2022 for modelling studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of bladder cancer screening and diagnostic interventions. Articles were appraised according to Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome (PICO) characteristics, modelling methods, model structures and data sources. The quality of the studies was also appraised using the Philips checklist by two independent reviewers. Results: Searches identified 3082 potentially relevant studies, which resulted in 18 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Four of these articles were on bladder cancer screening, and the remaining 14 were diagnostic or surveillance interventions. Two of the four screening models were individual-level simulations. All screening models (n = 4, with three on a high-risk population and one on a general population) concluded that screening is either cost saving or cost effective with cost-effectiveness ratios lower than $53,000/life-years saved. Disease prevalence was a strong determinant of cost effectiveness. Diagnostic models (n = 14) assessed multiple interventions; white light cystoscopy was the most common intervention and was considered cost effective in all studies (n = 4). Screening models relied largely on published evidence generalised from other countries and did not report the validation of their predictions to external data. Almost all diagnostic models (n = 13 out of 14) had a time horizon of 5 years or less and most of the models (n = 11) did not incorporate health-related utilities. In both screening and diagnostic models, epidemiological inputs were based on expert elicitation, assumptions or international evidence of uncertain generalisability. In modelling disease, seven models did not use a standard classification system to define cancer states, others used risk-based, numerical or a Tumour, Node, Metastasis classification. Despite including certain components of disease onset or progression, no models included a complete and coherent model of the natural history of bladder cancer (i.e. simulating the progression of asymptomatic primary bladder cancer from cancer onset, i.e. in the absence of treatment). Conclusions: The variation in natural history model structures and the lack of data for model parameterisation suggest that research in bladder cancer early detection and screening is at an early stage of development. Appropriate characterisation and analysis of uncertainty in bladder cancer models should be considered a priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

39. Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials.

Author

Juul, Frederik Emil, Garborg, Kjetil, Nesbakken, Eugen, Løberg, Magnus, Wieszczy, Paulina, Cubiella, Joaquín, Kalager, Mette, Kaminski, Michael F., Erichsen, Rune, Adami, Hans-Olov, Ferlitsch, Monika, Furholm, Siv K. B., Zauber, Ann G., Quintero, Enrique, Bugajski, Marek, Holme, Øyvind, Dekker, Evelien, Jover, Rodrigo, and Bretthauer, Michael

Subjects
ADENOMATOUS polyps, COLON polyps, ADENOMA, COLON (Anatomy), BOWEL preparation (Procedure)
Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Adenoma Prevalence in Blacks and Whites Having Equal Adherence To Screening Colonoscopy: The National Colonoscopy Study

Author

Mendelsohn, Robin B., Winawer, Sidney J., Jammula, Anjani, Mills, Glenn, Jordan, Paul, O’Brien, Michael J., Close, Georgia M., Dorfman, Michael, Church, Timothy R., Mandelson, Margaret T., Allen, John, Feld, Andrew, Kauff, Noah D., Morgan, Georgia A., Kumar, Julie M.R., Serrano, Victoria, Bayuga-Miller, Sharon, Fischer, Sara E., Kuk, Deborah, and Zauber, Ann G.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

43. Validation of a Genetic-Enhanced Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer in a Large Community-Based Cohort.

Author

Yu-Ru Su, Sakoda, Lori C., Jihyoun Jeon, Thomas, Minta, Yi Lin, Schneider, Jennifer L., Udaltsova, Natalia, Lee, Jeffrey K., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris, Peterse, Elisabeth F. P., Zauber, Ann G., Jiayin Zheng, Yingye Zheng, Hauser, Elizabeth, Baron, John A., Barry, Elizabeth L., Bishop, D. Timothy, Brenner, Hermann, Buchanan, Daniel D., and Burnett-Hartman, Andrea

Abstract

Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) which summarize individuals' genetic risk profile may enhance targeted colorectal cancer screening. A critical step towards clinical implementation is rigorous external validations in large community-based cohorts. This study externally validated a PRS-enhanced colorectal cancer risk model comprising 140 known colorectal cancer loci to provide a comprehensive assessment on prediction performance. Methods: The model was developed using 20,338 individuals and externally validated in a community-based cohort (n = 85,221). We validated predicted 5-year absolute colorectal cancer risk, including calibration using expected-to-observed case ratios (E/O) and calibration plots, and discriminatory accuracy using time-dependent AUC. The PRS-related improvement in AUC, sensitivity and specificity were assessed in individuals of age 45 to 74 years (screening-eligible age group) and 40 to 49 years with no endoscopy history (younger-age group). Results: In European-ancestral individuals, the predicted 5-year risk calibrated well [E/O = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-1.13] and had high discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.76). Adding the PRS to a model with age, sex, family and endoscopy history improved the 5-year AUC by 0.06 (P < 0.001) and 0.14 (P = 0.05) in the screening-eligible age and younger-age groups, respectively. Using a risk-threshold of 5-year SEER colorectal cancer incidence rate at age 50 years, adding the PRS had a similar sensitivity but improved the specificity by 11% (P < 0.001) in the screening-eligible age group. In the younger-age group it improved the sensitivity by 27% (P = 0.04) with similar specificity. Conclusions: The proposed PRS-enhanced model provides a well-calibrated 5-year colorectal cancer risk prediction and improves discriminatory accuracy in the external cohort. Impact: The proposed model has potential utility in risk-stratified colorectal cancer prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. Impact and Recovery from COVID-19-Related Disruptions in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Care in the US: A Scenario Analysis.

Author

van den Puttelaar, Rosita, Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris, Hahn, Anne I., Rutter, Carolyn M., Levin, Theodore R., Zauber, Ann G., and Meester, Reinier G. S.

Abstract

Background: Many colorectal cancer-related procedures were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we predict the impact of resulting delays in screening (colonoscopy, FIT, and sigmoidoscopy) and diagnosis on colorectal cancer-related outcomes, and compare different recovery scenarios. Methods: Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated the US population and evaluated different impact and recovery scenarios. Scenarios were defined by the duration and severity of the disruption (percentage of eligible adults affected), the length of delays, and the duration of the recovery. During recovery (6, 12 or 24 months), capacity was increased to catch up missed procedures. Primary outcomes were excess colorectal cancer cases and -related deaths, and additional colonoscopies required during recovery. Results: With a 24-month recovery, the model predicted that the US population would develop 7,210 (0.18%) excess colorectal cancer cases during 2020-2040, and 6,950 (0.65%) excess colorectal cancer-related deaths, and require 108,500 (8.6%) additional colonoscopies per recovery month, compared with a no-disruption scenario. Shorter recovery periods of 6 and 12 months, respectively, decreased excess colorectal cancer-related deaths to 4,190 (0.39%) and 4,580 (0.43%), at the expense of 260,200-590,100 (20.7%-47.0%) additional colonoscopies per month. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic will likely cause more than 4,000 excess colorectal cancer-related deaths in the US, which could increase to more than 7,000 if recovery periods are longer. Impact: Our results highlight that catching-up colorectal cancer-related services within 12 months provides a good balance between required resources and mitigation of the impact of the disruption on colorectal cancer-related deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results