A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult

Abstract

Psychosocial Distress Screening in a Community Cancer Center: An Examination of Gender Differences

Objective: The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of the needs of male and female oncology patients within a community cancer setting to inform the provision of psychosocial services. Data obtained from 835 single-page measures of oncology patient distress were collected and analyzed to examine the relationship between gender and reported level of distress, the source of this distress, and requests for follow-up from psychosocial service providers.Method: Patients in medical and radiation oncology were given a distress screener tool that included a distress thermometer, a problem checklist, and a list of psychosocial service providers with whom the patient could request to speak.Results: Women reported higher levels of distress than men (p=.003). Women were also more likely than men to endorse practical problems as the cause of their distress (p=.003). A marginally significant relationship between gender and requesting the cancer resource navigator was also found (p=. 059)Conclusion: Gender is a salient factor in reported distress among cancer patients. Although no single variable can entirely explain an individual's response to cancer, male and female patients do appear to have distinctive, gender-specific needs. Psychosocial interventions that account for differences related to gender-role may be particularly beneficial. These results also illustrate the utility of consistent screening practices to better understand and meet the psychosocial needs of oncology

Psychosocial Distress Screening in a Community Cancer Center: An Exploratory Study of Distress Screening Across the Cancer Treatment Continuum

Purpose: The primary goal of this exploratory study is to demonstrate that distress screening across the course of cancer treatment is possible and provides valuable information about patient needs over time. Distress screening is aligned with guidelines from national accrediting organizations and may lead to improved health-related quality of life, satisfaction with medical care, and possibly survival.Methods: Medical, surgical, and radiation oncology patients completed a screening instrument before their appointments during a six-month period. Patients indicated their level of distress on four domains (practical, emotional, health and social concerns). De-identified data was collected, aggregated and descriptive statistics were analyzed.Results: Approximately 3000 screens were collected and 1500 cancer patients were screened. Of patients who indicated distress, 54% demonstrated a distress level of five or greater. Distress level eight was the most frequent level of distress indicated. The Cancer Dietitian was the most commonly requested healthcare team provider. The Health Concern domain was most frequently endorsed.Conclusion: NCCN, IOM and COC guidelines recommend distress screening in all cancer treatment centers, however implementation has proven difficult. This study adds to the literature about distress in cancer patients, demonstrates the feasibility of repeated distress screening and provides a model program demonstrating the implementation of repeated distress screening at a community cancer center. Findings highlight the importance of supportive oncology services due to the prevalence of high levels of distress. Findings demonstrate the importance of the Cancer Dietitian in supportive cancer care. Additionally, the research reveals a potential perceived stigma in seeking psychosocial oncology services.

Universal Screening for Familial Colorectal Cancer Syndromes at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance: Qualitative Study of Providers involved in Implementation and Patients Experience with First Wave of Testing

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening. Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years. Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p

Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1-7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35-49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was 28 pound 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to 11 pound 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and 15 pound 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.