Search

Purpose: We present findings from an assessment of award recipients' partners from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We describe partners' processes of identifying and tracking patients undergoing stool-based screening. Methods: We analyzed data from eight CRCCP award recipients purposively sampled and their partner health systems from 2019 to 2023. The data included number of stool-based tests distributed and returned; abnormal findings; referrals and completion of follow-up colonoscopies; and colonoscopy findings. We also report on strategies to improve tracking of stool-based tests and facilitation of follow-up colonoscopies. Results: Five of eight CRCCP award recipients reported that all or some partner health systems were able to report stool test return rates. Six had health systems that were able to report abnormal stool test findings. Two reported that health systems could track time to follow-up colonoscopy completion from date of referral, while four could report colonoscopy completion but not the timeframe. Follow-up colonoscopy completion varied substantially from 24.2 to 75.5% (average of 47.9%). Strategies to improve identifying and tracking screening focused mainly on the use of electronic medical records; strategies to facilitate follow-up colonoscopy were multi-level. Conclusion: Health systems vary in their ability to track steps in the stool-based screening process and few health systems can track time to completion of follow-up colonoscopy. Longer time intervals can result in more advanced disease. CRCCP-associated health systems participating in this study could support the implementation of multicomponent strategies at the individual, provider, and health system levels to improve tracking and completion of follow-up colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening in healthcare is the process of identifying apparently healthy individuals in a given population who either have an early stage asymptomatic disease or are at a higher risk of developing a disease. The goal of a screening test is an early diagnosis of a disease, which then can be effectively managed at an early stage resulting in a reduced disease-specific or overall mortality. It can be used for a variety of health conditions and across a broad spectrum of population depending on the health condition. Screening for cancers started in the mid-20th century with the introduction of screening for cervical cancers, and has since been tested for and extended to a number of other cancers. In this article we discuss the principles of cancer screening including characteristics of screening tests, benefits and limitations of screening programs in a population, followed by a brief overview of current cancer screening programs in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer screening programs are carried out worldwide and in our country to diagnose breast cancer in its early stage, before the disease shows any symptoms. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of non-physician healthcare professionals about breast cancer screening programs. This study was planned as a cross-sectional survey study, nurses and female non-physician hospital staff from different professions were included. In addition to primary demographic data, various questions were asked to the participants to evaluate their knowledge about breast cancer screening programs and compliance with breast cancer screening programs, and then the data were analyzed. A total of 332 volunteers were included in our study. 317 (95.5%) of them stated that they had heard of the Cancer Early Diagnosis, Screening, and Education Centers (KETEM) before. When asked whether cancer screenings were essential, 327 (98.5%) of the volunteers answered "Yes," considering it is essential, and thus it was thought that non-physician healthcare professionals had a high awareness of this issue. Fifty (15.1%) of the non-physician healthcare professionals stated that they regularly performed breast self-exams once a month, 83 (25.0%) did not do any breast examination, and 154 (46.4%) did it sporadically. Of the population, 66 people were 40 years and older. In this population, 33 (50.0%) of the participants answered "Yes" to the question "Have you ever had a mammogram?"; whereas 33 (50.0%) of them answered "No." In general, the awareness of the participants was high, but it was thought that their level of knowledge about breast cancer screening was insufficient. In addition, it was observed that the compliance rates to cancer screening programs were insufficient. Therefore, an absolute effort should be made to increase the knowledge and awareness of health professionals who play an essential role in public health. [Med-Science 2023; 12(2.000): 527-31]

Cancer screening programs are carried out worldwide and in our country to diagnose breast cancer in its early stage, before the disease shows any symptoms. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of non-physician healthcare professionals about breast cancer screening programs. This study was planned as a cross-sectional survey study, nurses and female non-physician hospital staff from different professions were included. In addition to primary demographic data, various questions were asked to the participants to evaluate their knowledge about breast cancer screening programs and compliance with breast cancer screening programs, and then the data were analyzed. A total of 332 volunteers were included in our study. 317 (95.5%) of them stated that they had heard of the Cancer Early Diagnosis, Screening, and Education Centers (KETEM) before. When asked whether cancer screenings were essential, 327 (98.5%) of the volunteers answered "Yes," considering it is essential, and thus it was thought that non-physician healthcare professionals had a high awareness of this issue. Fifty (15.1%) of the non-physician healthcare professionals stated that they regularly performed breast self-exams once a month, 83 (25.0%) did not do any breast examination, and 154 (46.4%) did it sporadically. Of the population, 66 people were 40 years and older. In this population, 33 (50.0%) of the participants answered "Yes" to the question "Have you ever had a mammogram?"; whereas 33 (50.0%) of them answered "No." In general, the awareness of the participants was high, but it was thought that their level of knowledge about breast cancer screening was insufficient. In addition, it was observed that the compliance rates to cancer screening programs were insufficient. Therefore, an absolute effort should be made to increase the knowledge and awareness of health professionals who play an essential role in public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening in healthcare is the process of identifying apparently healthy individuals in a given population who either have an early stage asymptomatic disease or are at a higher risk of developing a disease. The goal of a screening test is an early diagnosis of a disease, which then can be effectively managed at an early stage resulting in a reduced disease-specific or overall mortality. It can be used for a variety of health conditions and across a broad spectrum of population depending on the health condition. Screening for cancers started in the mid-20th century with the introduction of screening for cervical cancers, and has since been tested for and extended to a number of other cancers. In this article we discuss the principles of cancer screening including characteristics of screening tests, benefits and limitations of screening programs in a population, followed by a brief overview of current cancer screening programs in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the perceived obstacles and willingness of Lebanese men aged 40 and above to undergo screening for prostate cancer., Material and Method: A cross-sectional research design was employed. The study utilized a survey questionnaire to collect data on various factors influencing screening behaviors. The research instrument consisted of a comprehensive survey questionnaire that incorporated validated scales to assess barriers to prostate cancer screening, intention to screen, and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)., Results: The study found that the 120 participants had an average IPSS score of 7.20 ± 2.23, most people (70%) had mild symptoms of prostate cancer, whereas others had moderate (20%) or severe symptoms (10%). The majority of the men indicated a low to moderate inclination to undergo screening through Prostate-specific antigen testing, or digital rectal examination (DRE) (PSA), with 76% considering DRE and 70% considering PSA. The main barriers to screening included the dread of receiving distressing outcomes (48%) and a lack of understanding about the screening procedure (54%). The study identified key factors affecting the intention to undergo a prostate cancer screening. Regarding DREs, these factors included the perceived danger of the illness and prior information from doctors about prostate conditions. When it came to the intention to undergo screening through the prostate-specific antigen test (PSA), determinants included the perceived threat of the disease, one's general health perception, and prior information from doctors about prostate-related issues. Additionally, a significant proportion of participants believed that prostate cancer was not a serious illness (56%) and 57% thought DRE was embarrassing., Conclusions: The participants displayed a low willingness to get screened for prostate cancer. Implementing interventions that focus on increasing awareness of the disease and its associated risks could potentially reduce the barriers and boost participation in prostate cancer screening.

Cancer is a major public health problem in South America. The cancer mortality burden is increasing in the region due to its presentation at later stages, which is related to limited access to cancer care. This results in a noticeable inequity in provisions of cancer care including specialized screening programs, as well as cancer-related treatments such as personalized medicine, radiation therapy, palliative care, and survivorship services. Consequently, South America faces many challenges for cancer control, most of them deriving from a lack of funding and unequal distribution of resources and cancer services, affecting mostly the underserved populations in the region., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Amaç: Onkoloji kliniğimizde takip ettiğimiz hastaların özelliklerini ortaya koymak ve güncel literatür bilgileri eşliğinde yorumlamak.Gereç ve Yöntem: Onkoloji kliniğimizde 2010-2012 yılları arasında takip ettiğimiz 1252 kanser hastasının dosyaları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastaların primer tümör lokalizasyonu, yaşı, cinsiyeti, ailede kanser öyküsü olup olmadığı, diyabetes mellitus varlığı, sigara ve alkol kullanımı, cinsiyete göre en sık görülen kanser tipleri ve tanı anında metastaz varlığı dökümante edildi. Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen 1252 hastanın 680'i (%54.3) kadın, 572'i (%45.7) erkekti. Tüm hastaların yaş ortalaması 63 idi. Hastaların 10'u (%0.8) alkol, 381'i (%30.4) sigara kullanıyordu. Ailede kanser öyküsü olan hasta sayısı 185 (%14.8) ve tanı anında diyabetik olan hasta sayısı 166 (%13,3) olarak kaydedildi. Hastaların 324'ü (%25) meme kanseri, 237'si (%18.9) akciğer kanseri, 157'si (%12.5) kolon kanseri, 107'si (%8.5) rektum kanseri, 94'ü (%7.5) mide kanseri, 38'i (%3) over kanseri, 27'si (%2.1) primeri bilinmeyen kanser, 26'sı (%2) endometrium kanseri, 24'ü (%1.9) prostat kanseri, 19'u (%1.5) pankreas kanseri, 14'ü (%1.1) testis kanseri ve 185'i (%14.7) diğer kanserler olarak saptandı. Tanı anında hastaların %41.1'inde metastaz saptandı. Erkek hastalarda en sık saptanan 3 kanser türü sırasıyla; akciğer kanseri (%35.9), kolorektal kanser (%23) ve mide kanseri (%10.8) olarak saptandı. Kadın hastalarda en sık saptanan üç kanser türü sırasıyla; meme kanseri (%46.6), kolorektal kanser (%18.4) ve akciğer kanseri (%5.2) olarak saptandı.Sonuç: Çalışmamızda tüm hastalarda en sık görülen ilk üç malignite sırasıyla; meme kanseri, akciğer kanseri ve kolon kanseri olarak tespit edildi. Evresi yüksek kanserlerde yüksek mortalite ve tedavi maliyetleri ile düşük prognoz düşünüldüğünde erken tanı açısından kanser tarama programlarının etkin bir şekilde uygulanmasının gerekliliğini vurgulamak istedik.

Lung cancer accounts for more American deaths annually than any other cancer, and the survival rate is low among those diagnosed with advanced-stage disease. Screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) can help to reduce mortality. CT screening for lung cancer should be performed in the context of a comprehensive screening program, rather than as a single isolated test. The addition of the nurse practitioner role is instrumental in creating a lung cancer screening program that may increase patient satisfaction and that meets regulatory criteri [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Breast cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in women after lung cancer in the World. Early diagnosis and treatment is life-saving. Our aim with this study is to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of breast cancer awareness of health care professionals and patients who apply to our Family Medicine Policlinic in Eskisehir. Methods: A total of 424 female patients were included in the study. "Evaluation of the Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors of Breast Health of Patients and Healthcare Personnels Attending to the Family Physician Policlinic Form" which was prepared by the researchers was applied with a face-to-face interview method. Results: A total of 424 female patients were included in the study, 178 of them were health professionals. The average age was 40.2 ± 11.1 years. 54.1% (n= 153) of 283 patients who performed BSE were health care personnels and health care personnels' performances of BSE were found to be statistically higher than non-health care personnels. 47.9% (n= 203) of participants in study are over 40 years of age and 66.5% (n= 135) of them are screened by mammogram, 33.5% (n= 68) of them did not have a mammogram. There was no significant difference about screened by mammography between health care personnels and non-health care personnels. Conclusions: While attending preventive health services, they should have positive attitudes towards developing health for health care personnels, which is also an example for cancer screenings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess treatment and mortality differences between women diagnosed with breast cancer through Nebraska's Every Woman Matters (EWM) program and women diagnosed through other sources. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using 10 years of Nebraska Cancer Registry and EWM program data on women aged 40-74 years. This study used chi-square and multivariate logistic regression with mortality as the outcome of interest. Results: From 1997 to 2007, 4,739 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, 435 (9.1 %) of whom were diagnosed through EWM. The EWM and non-EWM groups differed significantly in age, race, marital status, location of residence at the time of diagnosis, neighborhood poverty level at the time of diagnosis, tumor stage at diagnosis, and chemotherapy. No significant differences were found between the two groups in radiation therapy, surgical resection, and hormone therapy. In both 1- and 5-year multivariate mortality models, the odds of dying for those in the EWM program were not statistically significantly different from the odds of dying for those not in the EWM program. In the 1-year mortality model, residents of urban metropolitan counties (OR 2.079; 95 % CI 1.663-2.598) had an increased odds of dying compared to residents of rural counties. In the 5-year mortality model, black women (OR 2.239; 95 % CI 1.453-3.450), residents of areas with a high (more than 20 %) neighborhood poverty level at the time of diagnosis (OR 1.589; 95 % CI 1.204-2.097), and unmarried women (OR 1.334; 95 % CI 1.164-1.528) had higher odds of death. Both groups have received similar treatments. Conclusions: Targeted outreach to vulnerable groups for cancer screening may improve cancer outcomes and reduce disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report briefly summarizes 13 articles in this dedicated supplement to Cancer documenting the full implementation and evaluation of CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP). The supplement includes 3 articles that describe clinical and quality outcomes; 2 articles that describe programmatic and clinical costs; 3 that were based on a multiple case study, using qualitative methods to describe the overall implementation experience of this initiative; and 4 articles written by and about individual program sites. The comprehensive, multi-methods evaluation conducted alongside the program produced many important lessons regarding the design, start-up, and implementation of colorectal cancer screening in this high-need population, and paved the way for the CDC to establish a larger, population-based colorectal cancer control initiative, broadly aligned with expectations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through its population-based emphasis on using a health systems approach to increase colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2817-9. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to explore the feasibility of establishing a large-scale colorectal cancer screening program for underserved populations in the United States. The authors of the current report provide a detailed description of the total program costs (clinical and nonclinical) incurred during both the start-up and service delivery (screening) phases of the 4-year program. METHODS Tailored cost questionnaires were completed by staff at the 5 CRCSDP sites. Cost data were collected for clinical services and nonclinical programmatic activities (program management, data collection, and tracking, etc). In-kind contributions also were measured and were assigned monetary values. RESULTS Nearly $11.3 million was expended by the 5 sites over 4 years, and 71% was provided by the CDC. The proportion of funding spent on clinical service delivery and service delivery/patient support comprised the largest proportion of cost during the implementation phase (years 2-4). The per-person nonclinical cost comprised a substantial portion of total costs for all sites. The cost per person screened varied across the 5 sites and by screening method. Overall, economies of scale were observed, with lower costs resulting from larger numbers of individuals screened. CONCLUSIONS Programs incur substantial variable costs related to clinical services and semivariable costs related to nonclinical services. Therefore, programs that serve large populations are likely to achieve a lower cost per person. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2855-62. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among US men and women. Screening rates have been slow to increase, and disparities in screening remain. METHODS To address the disparity in screening for this high burden but largely preventable disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed and established a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) in 2005 for low-income, under-insured or uninsured men and women aged 50 to 64 years in 5 participating US program sites. In this report, the authors describe the design of the CRCSDP and the overall clinical findings and screening test performance characteristics, including the positive fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) rate; the rates of polyp, adenoma, and cancer detection with FOBTs and colonoscopies; and the positive predicative value for polyps, adenomas, and cancers. RESULTS In total, 5233 individuals at average risk and increased risk were screened for colorectal cancer across all 5 sites, including 44% who underwent screening FOBT and 56% who underwent screening colonoscopy. Overall, 77% of all individuals screened were women. The FOBT positivity rate was 10%. Results from all screening or diagnostic colonoscopies indicated that 75% had negative results and required a repeat screening colonoscopy in 10 years, 16% had low-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 5 to 10 years, 8% had high-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 3 years, and 0.6% had invasive cancers. CONCLUSIONS This report documents the successes and challenges in implementing the CDC's CRCSDP and describes the clinical outcomes of this 4-year initiative, the patterns in program uptake and test choice, and the comparative test performance characteristics of FOBT versus colonoscopy. Patterns in final outcomes from the follow-up of positive screening tests were consistent with national registry data. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2820-33. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]