Search

Your search keyword '"De Koning, Harry J."' showing total 1,680 results
Start Over Author "De Koning, Harry J."
1,680 results on '"De Koning, Harry J."'

1. Quality of life of women with a screen-detected versus clinically detected breast cancer in the Netherlands: a prospective cohort study

Author

Irzaldy, Abyan, Otten, Johannes D. M., Kregting, Lindy M., van der Molen, Dieuwke R. Mink, Verkooijen, Helena M., van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T., Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M., Doeksen, Annemiek, van der Pol, Carmen C., Evers, Daniel J., Ernst, Miranda F., Korfage, Ida J., de Koning, Harry J., and Broeders, Mireille J. M.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Coronary Artery Calcium Scores After Prophylactic Premenopausal Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy

Author

Beekman, Maarten J., Terra, Lara, Heemskerk-Gerritsen, Bernadette A.M., van der Aalst, Carlijn M., Roeters van Lennep, Jeanine E., van Beurden, Marc, van Doorn, Helena C., de Hullu, Joanne A., van Dorst, Eleonora B.L., Mom, Constantijne H., Mourits, Marian J.E., Slangen, Brigitte F.M., Bartels-Rutten, Annemarieke, Budde, Ricardo P.J., Snoeren, Miranda M., Leiner, Tim, de Jong, Pim A., Vliegenthart, Rozemarijn, Planken, R. Nils, Mihl, Casper, Vonder, Marleen, Oudkerk, Matthijs, Gaarenstroom, Katja N., Gratama, Jan Willem C., van Engelen, Klaartje, van der Kolk, Lizet E., Collée, J. Margriet, Wevers, Marijke R., Ausems, Margreet G.E.M., Berger, Lieke P.V., Gomez Garcia, Encarna B., van Asperen, Christi J., Hooning, Maartje J., de Koning, Harry J., Maas, Angela H.E.M., and van Leeuwen, Flora E.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Correction: LiverScreen project: study protocol for screening for liver fibrosis in the general population in European countries

Author

Graupera, Isabel, Thiele, Maja, Ma, Ann T., Serra-Burriel, Miquel, Pich, Judit, Fabrellas, Núria, Caballeria, Llorenç, de Knegt, Robert J., Grgurevic, Ivica, Reichert, Mathias, Roulot, Dominique, Schattenberg, Jörn M., Pericas, Juan M., Angeli, Paolo, Tsochatzis, Emmanuel A., Guha, Indra Neil, Garcia-Retortillo, Montserrat, Morillas, Rosa M., Hernández, Rosario, Hoyo, Jordi, Fuentes, Matilde, Madir, Anita, Juanola, Adrià, Soria, Anna, Juan, Marta, Carol, Marta, Diaz, Alba, Detlefsen, Sönke, Toran, Pere, Pera, Guillem, Fournier, Céline, Llorca, Anne, Newsome, Phillip N., Manns, Michael, de Koning, Harry J., Serra-Burriel, Feliu, Cucchietti, Fernando, Arslanow, Anita, Korenjak, Marko, van Kleef, Laurens, Falcó, Josep Lluis, Kamath, Patrick S., Karlsen, Tom H., Castera, Laurent, Lammert, Frank, Krag, Aleksander, and Ginès, Pere

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Trade-Offs Between Harms and Benefits of Different Breast Cancer Screening Intervals Among Low-Risk Women

Author

van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T, Schechter, Clyde B, Hampton, John M, Alagoz, Oguzhan, van den Broek, Jeroen J, Kerlikowske, Karla, Mandelblatt, Jeanne S, Miglioretti, Diana L, Sprague, Brian L, Stout, Natasha K, de Koning, Harry J, Trentham-Dietz, Amy, Tosteson, Anna NA, and Network, the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Breast Cancer, Biomedical Imaging, Prevention, Health Services, Clinical Research, Cancer, Women's Health, 4.2 Evaluation of markers and technologies, 4.4 Population screening, Good Health and Well Being, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Risk, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

BackgroundA paucity of research addresses breast cancer screening strategies for women at lower-than-average breast cancer risk. The aim of this study was to examine screening harms and benefits among women aged 50-74 years at lower-than-average breast cancer risk by breast density.MethodsThree well-established, validated Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network models were used to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of different screening scenarios, varying by screening interval (biennial, triennial). Breast cancer deaths averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained, false-positives, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis were assessed by relative risk (RR) level (0.6, 0.7, 0.85, 1 [average risk]) and breast density category, for US women born in 1970.ResultsScreening benefits decreased proportionally with decreasing risk and with lower breast density. False-positives, unnecessary biopsies, and the percentage overdiagnosis also varied substantially by breast density category; false-positives and unnecessary biopsies were highest in the heterogeneously dense category. For women with fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density and a relative risk of no more than 0.85, the additional deaths averted and life-years gained were small with biennial vs triennial screening. For these groups, undergoing 4 additional screens (screening biennially [13 screens] vs triennially [9 screens]) averted no more than 1 additional breast cancer death and gained no more than 16 life-years and no more than 10 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 women but resulted in up to 232 more false-positives per 1000 women.ConclusionTriennial screening from age 50 to 74 years may be a reasonable screening strategy for women with lower-than-average breast cancer risk and fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density.

Published
2021

10. Development, validation, and prognostic evaluation of a risk score for long-term liver-related outcomes in the general population: a multicohort study

Author

Alvarez, Marifé, Andersen, Peter, Angeli, Paolo, Ardèvol, Alba, Arslanow, Anita, Beggiato, Luca, Ben Abdesselam, Zahia, Bennett, Lucy, Boutouria, Bajiha, Brocca, Alessandra, Broquetas, M. Teresa, Caballeria, Llorenç, Calvino, Valeria, Camacho, Judith, Capdevila, Aura, Carol, Marta, Castera, Laurent, Cervera, Marta, Cucchietti, Fernando, de Fuentes, Anna, de Knegt, Rob, de Koning, Harry J, Detlefsen, Sonke, Diaz, Alba, Diéguez Bande, José, Esnault, Vanessa, Fabrellas, Núria, Falcó, Josep Lluis, Fernández, Rosa, Fournier, Céline, Fuentes, Matilde, Galle, Peter, García, Edgar, García-Retortillo, Montserrat, Garrido, Esther, Ginès, Pere, Gordillo Medina, Rosa, Gratacós-Ginès, Jordi, Graupera, Isabel, Grgurevic, Ivica, Guha, Indra Neil, Guix, Eva, Hansen, Johanne Kragh, Harris, Rebecca, Hernández Boluda, Elena, Hernández-Ibañez, Rosario, Hoyo, Jordi, Ikram, Arfan, Incicco, Simone, Israelsen, Mads, Juan, Marta, Juanola, Adrià, Kaiser, Ralf, Kamath, Patrick S, Karlsen, Tom H, Kjærgaard, Maria, Korenjak, Marko, Krag, Aleksander, Krawczyk, Marcin, Laboulaye, Philippe, Lambert, Irina, Lammert, Frank, Langkjær Sørensen, Simon, Laserna-Jiménez, Cristina, Lazaro Pi, Sonia, Ledain, Elsa, Levy, Vincent, Lindvig, Katrine Prier, Llorca, Anne, Londoño, Vanessa, Loyer, Guirec, Ma, Ann T., Madir, Anita, Manns, Michael, Marshall, Denise, Martí, M. Lluïsa, Martínez, Sara, Martínez Sala, Ricard, Masa-Font, Roser, Møller Jensen, Jane, Morillas, Rosa M, Muñoz, Laura, Nadal, Ruth, Napoleone, Laura, Navarrete, JM, Newsome, Phillip N, Nielsen, Vibeke, Pérez, Martina, Pericás-Pulido, Juan Manuel, Piano, Salvatore, Pich, Judit, Pose, Elisa, Presas Escobet, Judit, Reichert, Matthias, Riba, Carlota, Roulot, Dominique, Rubio, Ana Belén, Sánchez-Morata, Maria, Schattenberg, Jörn, Serra-Burriel, Miquel, Serra-Burriel, Feliu, Skovborg Just, Louise, Sonneveld, Milan, Soria, Anna, Stern, Christiane, Such, Patricia, Thiele, Maja, Tonon, Marta, Toran, Pere, Torrejón, Antoni, Tsochatzis, Emmanuel A, van Kleef, Laurens, van Wijngaarden, Paulien, Velázquez, Vanessa, Viu, Ana, Weber, Susanne Nicole, Wildsmith, Tracey, Pera, Guillem, Reichert, Mathias, Pericàs, Juan M, Schattenberg, Jörn M, Tsochatztis, Emmanuel A, Garcia-Retortillo, Montserrat, Hernández, Rosario, Expósito, Carmen, Martínez, Alba, Detlefsen, Sönke, Martini, Andrea, Ma, Ann T, Pich, Judith, Bonfill, Eva, Navarrete, J M, Hernáez, Rubén, Allen, Alina, de Knegt, Robert J, and Wong, Vincent Wai-Sun

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. Early detection of obstructive coronary artery disease in the asymptomatic high-risk population: objectives and study design of the EARLY-SYNERGY trial

Author

Ties, Daan, van Dorp, Paulien, Pundziute, Gabija, van der Aalst, Carlijn M., Gratama, Jan Willem C., Braam, Richard L., Kuijpers, Dirkjan, Lubbers, Daniël D., van der Bilt, Ivo A.C., Westenbrink, B. Daan, Wolcherink, Martijn J. Oude, Doggen, Carine J.M., Išgum, Ivana, Nijveldt, Robin, de Koning, Harry J., Vliegenthart, Rozemarijn, Oudkerk, Matthijs, and van der Harst, Pim

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Breast Density.

Author

Stout, Natasha K., Miglioretti, Diana L., Su, Yu-Ru, Lee, Christoph I., Abraham, Linn, Alagoz, Oguzhan, de Koning, Harry J., Hampton, John M., Henderson, Louise, Lowry, Kathryn P., Mandelblatt, Jeanne S., Onega, Tracy, Schechter, Clyde B., Sprague, Brian L., Stein, Sarah, Trentham-Dietz, Amy, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T., Wernli, Karen J., Kerlikowske, Karla, and Tosteson, Anna N. A.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. LiverScreen project: study protocol for screening for liver fibrosis in the general population in European countries

Author

Graupera, Isabel, Thiele, Maja, Ma, Ann T., Serra-Burriel, Miquel, Pich, Judit, Fabrellas, Núria, Caballeria, Llorenç, de Knegt, Robert J., Grgurevic, Ivica, Reichert, Mathias, Roulot, Dominique, Schattenberg, Jörn M., Pericas, Juan M., Angeli, Paolo, Tsochatzis, Emmanuel A., Guha, Indra Neil, Garcia-Retortillo, Montserrat, Morillas, Rosa M., Hernández, Rosario, Hoyo, Jordi, Fuentes, Matilde, Madir, Anita, Juanola, Adrià, Soria, Anna, Juan, Marta, Carol, Marta, Diaz, Alba, Detlefsen, Sönke, Toran, Pere, Pera, Guillem, Fournier, Céline, Llorca, Anne, Newsome, Phillip N., Manns, Michael, de Koning, Harry J., Serra-Burriel, Feliu, Cucchietti, Fernando, Arslanow, Anita, Korenjak, Marko, van Kleef, Laurens, Falcó, Josep Lluis, Kamath, Patrick S., Karlsen, Tom H., Castera, Laurent, Lammert, Frank, Krag, Aleksander, and Ginès, Pere

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations

Author

ten Haaf, Kevin, primary, de Nijs, Koen, additional, Simoni, Giulia, additional, Alban, Andres, additional, Cao, Pianpian, additional, Sun, Zhuolu, additional, Yong, Jean, additional, Jeon, Jihyoun, additional, Toumazis, Iakovos, additional, Han, Summer S., additional, Gazelle, G. Scott, additional, Kong, Chung Ying, additional, Plevritis, Sylvia K., additional, Meza, Rafael, additional, and de Koning, Harry J., additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

21. Genetic loci associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap with loci for lung function and pulmonary fibrosis

Author

Hobbs, Brian D, de Jong, Kim, Lamontagne, Maxime, Bossé, Yohan, Shrine, Nick, Artigas, María Soler, Wain, Louise V, Hall, Ian P, Jackson, Victoria E, Wyss, Annah B, London, Stephanie J, North, Kari E, Franceschini, Nora, Strachan, David P, Beaty, Terri H, Hokanson, John E, Crapo, James D, Castaldi, Peter J, Chase, Robert P, Bartz, Traci M, Heckbert, Susan R, Psaty, Bruce M, Gharib, Sina A, Zanen, Pieter, Lammers, Jan W, Oudkerk, Matthijs, Groen, HJ, Locantore, Nicholas, Tal-Singer, Ruth, Rennard, Stephen I, Vestbo, Jørgen, Timens, Wim, Paré, Peter D, Latourelle, Jeanne C, Dupuis, Josée, O'Connor, George T, Wilk, Jemma B, Kim, Woo Jin, Lee, Mi Kyeong, Oh, Yeon-Mok, Vonk, Judith M, de Koning, Harry J, Leng, Shuguang, Belinsky, Steven A, Tesfaigzi, Yohannes, Manichaikul, Ani, Wang, Xin-Qun, Rich, Stephen S, Barr, R Graham, Sparrow, David, Litonjua, Augusto A, Bakke, Per, Gulsvik, Amund, Lahousse, Lies, Brusselle, Guy G, Stricker, Bruno H, Uitterlinden, André G, Ampleford, Elizabeth J, Bleecker, Eugene R, Woodruff, Prescott G, Meyers, Deborah A, Qiao, Dandi, Lomas, David A, Yim, Jae-Joon, Kim, Deog Kyeom, Hawrylkiewicz, Iwona, Sliwinski, Pawel, Hardin, Megan, Fingerlin, Tasha E, Schwartz, David A, Postma, Dirkje S, MacNee, William, Tobin, Martin D, Silverman, Edwin K, Boezen, H Marike, and Cho, Michael H

Subjects
Biological Sciences, Genetics, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Lung, Human Genome, Clinical Research, Aetiology, 2.1 Biological and endogenous factors, Respiratory, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alleles, Asthma, Female, Genetic Loci, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genome-Wide Association Study, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phenotype, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Pulmonary Fibrosis, Risk Factors, Smoking, COPDGene Investigators, ECLIPSE Investigators, LifeLines Investigators, SPIROMICS Research Group, International COPD Genetics Network Investigators, UK BiLEVE Investigators, International COPD Genetics Consortium, Medical and Health Sciences, Developmental Biology, Agricultural biotechnology, Bioinformatics and computational biology
Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. We performed a genetic association study in 15,256 cases and 47,936 controls, with replication of select top results (P < 5 × 10-6) in 9,498 cases and 9,748 controls. In the combined meta-analysis, we identified 22 loci associated at genome-wide significance, including 13 new associations with COPD. Nine of these 13 loci have been associated with lung function in general population samples, while 4 (EEFSEC, DSP, MTCL1, and SFTPD) are new. We noted two loci shared with pulmonary fibrosis (FAM13A and DSP) but that had opposite risk alleles for COPD. None of our loci overlapped with genome-wide associations for asthma, although one locus has been implicated in joint susceptibility to asthma and obesity. We also identified genetic correlation between COPD and asthma. Our findings highlight new loci associated with COPD, demonstrate the importance of specific loci associated with lung function to COPD, and identify potential regions of genetic overlap between COPD and other respiratory diseases.

Published
2017

24. How will lung cancer screening and lung nodule management change the diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape?

Author

Hardavella, Georgia, Frille, Armin, Chalela, Roberto, Sreter, Katherina B., Petersen, Rene H., Novoa, Nuria, de Koning, Harry J., Hardavella, Georgia, Frille, Armin, Chalela, Roberto, Sreter, Katherina B., Petersen, Rene H., Novoa, Nuria, and de Koning, Harry J.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of lung cancer screening, with its subsequent findings, is anticipated to change the current diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape. This review aimed to identify and present the most updated expert opinion and discuss relevant evidence regarding the impact of lung cancer screening and lung nodule management on the diagnostic and surgical landscape of lung cancer, as well as summarise points for clinical practice. METHODS: This article is based on relevant lectures and talks delivered during the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Respiratory Society Collaborative Course on Thoracic Oncology (February 2023). Original lectures and talks and their relevant references were included. An additional literature search was conducted and peer-reviewed studies in English (December 2022 to June 2023) from the PubMed/Medline databases were evaluated with regards to immediate affinity of the published papers to the original talks presented at the course. An updated literature search was conducted (June 2023 to December 2023) to ensure that updated literature is included within this article. RESULTS: Lung cancer screening suspicious findings are expected to increase the number of diagnostic investigations required therefore impacting on current capacity and resources. Healthcare systems already face a shortage of imaging and diagnostic slots and they are also challenged by the shortage of interventional radiologists. Thoracic surgery will be impacted by the wider lung cancer screening implementation with increased volume and earlier stages of lung cancer. Nonsuspicious findings reported at lung cancer screening will need attention and subsequent referrals where required to ensure participants are appropriately diagnosed and managed and that they are not lost within healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of lung cancer screening requires appropria

Published
2024

25. Breast Cancer Screening in Georgia:Choosing the Most Optimal and Cost-Effective Strategy

Author

Irzaldy, Abyan, Gvamichava, Rema, Beruchashvili, Tina, Sturua, Lela, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T., de Koning, Harry J., Heijnsdijk, Eveline A.M., Irzaldy, Abyan, Gvamichava, Rema, Beruchashvili, Tina, Sturua, Lela, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T., de Koning, Harry J., and Heijnsdijk, Eveline A.M.

Abstract

Objectives: To define the optimal and cost-effective breast cancer screening strategy for Georgia. Methods: We used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Breast (MISCAN-Breast) model that has been adapted to the Georgian situation to evaluate 736 mammography screening strategies varied by interval (biennial and triennial), starting ages (40-60 years), stopping ages (64-84 years), and screening modality (with and without clinical breast examination [CBE]). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional cost (healthcare perspective) compared with no screening per 1000 women were calculated with 3% discount. Major uncertainties (eg, costs) are addressed as sensitivity analyses. Results: Strategies using a combination of mammography and CBE yielded in substantially higher costs with minimal differences in outcomes compared with mammography-only strategies. The current screening strategy, biennial mammography screening from the age of 40 until 70 years with CBE, is close to the frontier line but requires high additional cost given the QALY gains (€16 218/QALY), well above the willingness-to-pay threshold of €12 720. The optimal strategy in Georgia would be triennial mammography-only screening from age 45 to 66 years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12 507. Conclusions: Biennial screening strategies are resource-intensive strategies and may not be feasible for Georgia. By switching to triennial mammography-only strategy from the age of 45 until 66 years, it is possible to offer screening to more eligible women while still gaining substantial screening benefits. This is to address capacity issues which is a common barrier for many Eastern European countries.

Published
2024

26. The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations

Author

Ten Haaf, Kevin, de Nijs, Koen, Simoni, Giulia, Alban, Andres, Cao, Pianpian, Sun, Zhuolu, Yong, Jean, Jeon, Jihyoun, Toumazis, Iakovos, Han, Summer S, Gazelle, G Scott, Kong, Chung Ying, Plevritis, Sylvia K, Meza, Rafael, de Koning, Harry J, Ten Haaf, Kevin, de Nijs, Koen, Simoni, Giulia, Alban, Andres, Cao, Pianpian, Sun, Zhuolu, Yong, Jean, Jeon, Jihyoun, Toumazis, Iakovos, Han, Summer S, Gazelle, G Scott, Kong, Chung Ying, Plevritis, Sylvia K, Meza, Rafael, and de Koning, Harry J

Abstract

Background: Recommendations regarding personalized lung cancer screening are being informed by natural-history modeling. Therefore, understanding how differences in model assumptions affect model-based personalized screening recommendations is essential. Design: Five Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models were evaluated. Lung cancer incidence, mortality, and stage distributions were compared across 4 theoretical scenarios to assess model assumptions regarding 1) sojourn times, 2) stage-specific sensitivities, and 3) screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions. Analyses were stratified by sex and smoking behavior. Results: Most cancers had sojourn times <5 y (model range [MR]; lowest to highest value across models: 83.5%–98.7% of cancers). However, cancer aggressiveness still varied across models, as demonstrated by differences in proportions of cancers with sojourn times <2 y (MR: 42.5%–64.6%) and 2 to 4 y (MR: 28.8%–43.6%). Stage-specific sensitivity varied, particularly for stage I (MR: 31.3%–91.5%). Screening reduced stage IV incidence in most models for 1 y postscreening; increased sensitivity prolonged this period to 2 to 5 y. Screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions among lung cancers detected at screening ranged widely (MR: 14.6%–48.9%), demonstrating variations in modeled treatment effectiveness of screen-detected cases. All models assumed longer sojourn times and greater screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for women. Models assuming differences in cancer epidemiology by smoking behaviors assumed shorter sojourn times and lower screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for heavy smokers. Conclusions: Model-based personalized screening recommendations are primarily driven by assumptions regarding sojourn times (favoring longer intervals for groups more likely to develop less aggressive cancers), sensitivity (higher sensitivities favoring longer intervals), and screening-induced m

Published
2024

27. Incidence of Interval Colorectal Cancer After Negative Results From First-Round Fecal Immunochemical Screening Tests, by Cutoff Value and Participant Sex and Age

Author

van der Beek, A., Otte, J.A., Wiersma, Tj., Masclee, A.A.M., van Bergeijk, J., Meijer, G., de Graaf, E.J.R., van Grevenstein, W.M.U., Frasa, M., Jacobs, L.H.J., Stoker, J., Vink, G., Elferink, M.A., Toes-Zoutendijk, Esther, Kooyker, Arthur I., Dekker, Evelien, Spaander, Manon C.W., Opstal-van Winden, Annemieke W.J., Ramakers, Christian, Buskermolen, Maaike, van Vuuren, Anneke J., Kuipers, Ernst J., van Kemenade, Folkert J., Velthuysen, Marie-Louise F., Thomeer, Maarten G.J., van Veldhuizen, Harriët, van Ballegooijen, Marjolein, Nagtegaal, Iris D., de Koning, Harry J., van Leerdam, Monique E., and Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Impact of colorectal cancer screening on cancer-specific mortality in Europe: A systematic review

Author

Veerus, Piret, Anttila, Ahti, Heinävaara, Sirpa, Sarkeala, Tytti, Csanádi, Marcell, Pitter, Janos, Széles, György, Vokó, Zoltán, Minozzi, Silvia, Segnan, Nereo, Senore, Carlo, van Ballegooijen, Marjolein, Driesprong - de Kok, Inge, Gini, Andrea, Heijnsdijk, Eveline, Jansen, Erik, de Koning, Harry, Lansdorp – Vogelaar, Iris, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien, Zielonke, Nadine, Ivanus, Urska, Jarm, Katja, Mlakar, Dominika Novak, Primic-Žakelj, Maja, McKee, Martin, Priaulx, Jennifer, Jansen, Erik E.L., Meester, Reinier G.S., de Koning, Harry J., and Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Effect of organised cervical cancer screening on cervical cancer mortality in Europe: a systematic review

Author

Veerus, Piret, Anttila, Ahti, Heinävaara, Sirpa, Sarkeala, Tytti, Csanádi, Marcell, Pitter, Janos, Széles, György, Vokó, Zoltán, Minozzi, Silvia, Segnan, Nereo, Senore, Carlo, van Ballegooijen, Marjolein, Driesprong - de Kok, Inge, Gini, Andrea, Heijnsdijk, Eveline, Jansen, Erik, de Koning, Harry, Lansdorp – Vogelaar, Iris, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien, Zielonke, Nadine, Ivanus, Urska, Jarm, Katja, Mlakar, Dominika Novak, Primic-Žakelj, Maja, McKee, Martin, Priaulx, Jennifer, Jansen, Erik E.L., Ivanuš, Urška, de Koning, Harry J., and de Kok, Inge M.C.M.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Evidence for reducing cancer-specific mortality due to screening for breast cancer in Europe: A systematic review

Author

Veerus, Piret, Anttila, Ahti, Heinävaara, Sirpa, Sarkeala, Tytti, Cañada, Marcell, Pitter, Janos, Széles, György, Voko, Zoltan, Minozzi, Silvia, Segnan, Nereo, Senore, Carlo, van Ballegooijen, Marjolein, Driesprong - de Kok, Inge, Gini, Andrea, Heijnsdijk, Eveline, Jansen, Erik, de Koning, Harry, Lansdorp – Vogelaar, Iris, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien, Zielonke, Nadine, Ivanus, Urska, Jarm, Katja, Mlakar, Dominika Novak, Primic-Žakelj, Maja, McKee, Martin, Priaulx, Jennifer, Jansen, Erik E.L., Ponti, Antonio, de Koning, Harry J., van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T., and Heijnsdijk, Eveline A.M.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Author

Miglioretti, Diana L, Lange, Jane, van den Broek, Jeroen J, Lee, Christoph I, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T, Ritley, Dominique, Kerlikowske, Karla, Fenton, Joshua J, Melnikow, Joy, de Koning, Harry J, and Hubbard, Rebecca A

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Cancer, Clinical Research, Women's Health, Health Services, Breast Cancer, Prevention, Biomedical Imaging, 4.4 Population screening, Good Health and Well Being, Adult, Aged, Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Computer Simulation, Early Detection of Cancer, Female, Humans, Incidence, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced, Radiation Dosage, Risk Factors, United States, Clinical Sciences, Public Health and Health Services
Abstract

BackgroundEstimates of risk for radiation-induced breast cancer from mammography screening have not considered variation in dose exposure or diagnostic work-up after abnormal screening results.ObjectiveTo estimate distributions of radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening while considering exposure from screening and diagnostic mammography and dose variation among women.Design2 simulation-modeling approaches.SettingU.S. population.PatientsWomen aged 40 to 74 years.InterventionAnnual or biennial digital mammography screening from age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years.MeasurementsLifetime breast cancer deaths averted (benefits) and radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality (harms) per 100,000 women screened.ResultsAnnual screening of 100,000 women aged 40 to 74 years was projected to induce 125 breast cancer cases (95% CI, 88 to 178) leading to 16 deaths (CI, 11 to 23), relative to 968 breast cancer deaths averted by early detection from screening. Women exposed at the 95th percentile were projected to develop 246 cases of radiation-induced breast cancer leading to 32 deaths per 100,000 women. Women with large breasts requiring extra views for complete examination (8% of population) were projected to have greater radiation-induced breast cancer risk (266 cancer cases and 35 deaths per 100,000 women) than other women (113 cancer cases and 15 deaths per 100,000 women). Biennial screening starting at age 50 years reduced risk for radiation-induced cancer 5-fold.LimitationLife-years lost from radiation-induced breast cancer could not be estimated.ConclusionRadiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening are affected by dose variability from screening, resultant diagnostic work-up, initiation age, and screening frequency. Women with large breasts may have a greater risk for radiation-induced breast cancer.Primary funding sourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, National Cancer Institute.

Published
2016

33. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Author

Mandelblatt, Jeanne S, Stout, Natasha K, Schechter, Clyde B, van den Broek, Jeroen J, Miglioretti, Diana L, Krapcho, Martin, Trentham-Dietz, Amy, Munoz, Diego, Lee, Sandra J, Berry, Donald A, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T, Alagoz, Oguzhan, Kerlikowske, Karla, Tosteson, Anna NA, Near, Aimee M, Hoeffken, Amanda, Chang, Yaojen, Heijnsdijk, Eveline A, Chisholm, Gary, Huang, Xuelin, Huang, Hui, Ergun, Mehmet Ali, Gangnon, Ronald, Sprague, Brian L, Plevritis, Sylvia, Feuer, Eric, de Koning, Harry J, and Cronin, Kathleen A

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Health Services, Women's Health, Breast Cancer, Biomedical Imaging, Prevention, Health Disparities, Cancer, Clinical Research, 4.4 Population screening, Good Health and Well Being, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Comorbidity, Computer Simulation, Early Detection of Cancer, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Incidence, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Risk Assessment, Time Factors, United States, Medical and Health Sciences, General & Internal Medicine, Clinical sciences
Abstract

BackgroundControversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.ObjectiveTo evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.DesignCollaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.SettingUnited States.PatientsAverage-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.InterventionEight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.MeasurementsBenefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.ResultsBiennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.LimitationOther imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.ConclusionBiennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Published
2016

35. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

Author

Sprague, Brian L, Stout, Natasha K, Schechter, Clyde, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T, Cevik, Mucahit, Alagoz, Oguzhan, Lee, Christoph I, van den Broek, Jeroen J, Miglioretti, Diana L, Mandelblatt, Jeanne S, de Koning, Harry J, Kerlikowske, Karla, Lehman, Constance D, and Tosteson, Anna NA

Subjects
Reproductive Medicine, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Cost Effectiveness Research, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Cancer, Women's Health, Prevention, Breast Cancer, Health Services, Biomedical Imaging, Clinical Research, 4.4 Population screening, 4.2 Evaluation of markers and technologies, Good Health and Well Being, Aged, Biopsy, Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Computer Simulation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Early Detection of Cancer, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ultrasonography, Mammary, United States, Clinical Sciences, Public Health and Health Services
Abstract

BackgroundMany states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness.ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.DesignComparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models.Data sourcesSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature.Target populationContemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectivePayer.InterventionSupplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result.Outcome measuresBreast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs.Results of base-case analysisSupplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a false-positive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325,000 per QALY gained (range, $112,000 to $766,000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246,000 per QALY gained (range, $74,000 to $535,000).Results of sensitivity analysisThe conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age.LimitationProvider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered.ConclusionSupplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute.

Published
2015

37. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Author

van Deurzen, Carolien HM, Loo, Claudette E, Wesseling, Jelle, Schlooz-Vries, Margrethe, van der Meij, Suzan, Mesker, Wilma, Keymeulen, Kristien, Contant, Carolien, Madsen, Eva, Koppert, Linetta B, Rothbarth, Joost, Veldhuis, Wouter B, Witkamp, Arjen J, Tetteroo, Eric, de Monye, Cecile, van Rosmalen, Mandy M, Remmelzwaal, Jolanda, Gort, Huub B W, Roi-Antonides, Roelie, Wasser, Martin NJM, van Druten, Edith, Saadatmand, Sepideh, Geuzinge, H Amarens, Rutgers, Emiel J T, Mann, Ritse M, de Roy van Zuidewijn, Diderick B W, Zonderland, Harmien M, Tollenaar, Rob A E M, Lobbes, Marc B I, Ausems, Margreet G E M, van 't Riet, Martijne, Hooning, Maartje J, Mares-Engelberts, Ingeborg, Luiten, Ernest J T, Heijnsdijk, Eveline A M, Verhoef, Cees, Karssemeijer, Nico, Oosterwijk, Jan C, Obdeijn, Inge-Marie, de Koning, Harry J, and Tilanus-Linthorst, Madeleine M A

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Author

Hugosson, Jonas, Roobol, Monique J., Månsson, Marianne, Tammela, Teuvo L.J., Zappa, Marco, Nelen, Vera, Kwiatkowski, Maciej, Lujan, Marcos, Carlsson, Sigrid V., Talala, Kirsi M., Lilja, Hans, Denis, Louis J., Recker, Franz, Paez, Alvaro, Puliti, Donella, Villers, Arnauld, Rebillard, Xavier, Kilpeläinen, Tuomas P., Stenman, Ulf H., Godtman, Rebecka Arnsrud, Stinesen Kollberg, Karin, Moss, Sue M., Kujala, Paula, Taari, Kimmo, Huber, Andreas, van der Kwast, Theodorus, Heijnsdijk, Eveline A., Bangma, Chris, De Koning, Harry J., Schröder, Fritz H., and Auvinen, Anssi

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

39. Benefits, Harms, and Costs for Breast Cancer Screening After US Implementation of Digital Mammography

Author

Stout, Natasha K, Lee, Sandra J, Schechter, Clyde B, Kerlikowske, Karla, Alagoz, Oguzhan, Berry, Donald, Buist, Diana SM, Cevik, Mucahit, Chisholm, Gary, de Koning, Harry J, Huang, Hui, Hubbard, Rebecca A, Miglioretti, Diana L, Munsell, Mark F, Trentham-Dietz, Amy, van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T, Tosteson, Anna NA, and Mandelblatt, Jeanne S

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Minority Health, Prevention, Biomedical Imaging, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Breast Cancer, Health Services, Cost Effectiveness Research, Cancer, Health Disparities, Clinical Research, Women's Health, 4.4 Population screening, Good Health and Well Being, Adult, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Direct Service Costs, Early Detection of Cancer, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, United States, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

BackgroundCompared with film, digital mammography has superior sensitivity but lower specificity for women aged 40 to 49 years and women with dense breasts. Digital has replaced film in virtually all US facilities, but overall population health and cost from use of this technology are unclear.MethodsUsing five independent models, we compared digital screening strategies starting at age 40 or 50 years applied annually, biennially, or based on density with biennial film screening from ages 50 to 74 years and with no screening. Common data elements included cancer incidence and test performance, both modified by breast density. Lifetime outcomes included mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and screening and treatment costs.ResultsFor every 1000 women screened biennially from age 50 to 74 years, switching to digital from film yielded a median within-model improvement of 2 life-years, 0.27 additional deaths averted, 220 additional false-positive results, and $0.35 million more in costs. For an individual woman, this translates to a health gain of 0.73 days. Extending biennial digital screening to women ages 40 to 49 years was cost-effective, although results were sensitive to quality-of-life decrements related to screening and false positives. Targeting annual screening by density yielded similar outcomes to targeting by age. Annual screening approaches could increase costs to $5.26 million per 1000 women, in part because of higher numbers of screens and false positives, and were not efficient or cost-effective.ConclusionsThe transition to digital breast cancer screening in the United States increased total costs for small added health benefits. The value of digital mammography screening among women aged 40 to 49 years depends on women's preferences regarding false positives.

Published
2014

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results