Characteristics of primary-care providers have been associated with their patients' participation in breast cancer screening. A nationwide observational survey, 'EDIFICE', was conducted by telephone from December 2007 to January 2008 on a representative sample of 600 general practitioners (GPs) working in France, to investigate how a GP's characteristics may influence patient participation in screening for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. For breast cancer screening, systematic recommendation was associated with female physicians [odds ratio (OR) =1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-3.1]. This systematic recommendation was also correlated with systematic referral for colorectal cancer (OR=1.5; 95% CI=1.0-2.5) and prostate cancer screening (OR=2.7; 95% CI=1.8-4.1). For colorectal cancer screening, the sex of the GP had no significant impact. However, systematic recommendation for both breast and prostate cancer screening was shown to be associated with systematic recommendation for colorectal cancer screening (OR=2.7; 95% CI=1.6-4.7 and OR=1.8; 95% CI=1.1-3.0, respectively). For prostate cancer screening, there was no significant sex specificity. However, systematic recommendation for both breast and colorectal cancer screening was associated with an advice on prostate cancer screening (OR=2.9; 95% CI=2.0-4.4 and OR=2.0; 95% CI=1.3-3.2, respectively). The age of the GP was not associated with a higher rate of systematic recommendation for screening for the three types of cancer. Male GPs were more likely than female GPs to perform digital rectal examinations on male patients (69 vs. 54%; OR=1.86; 95% CI=1.31-2.63). There is a global pattern of physicians being screening-prone (as suggested by the cross impact of recommendations from one cancer type to another). Although the frequency of systematic recommendation for breast cancer screening is higher with female GPs, systematic recommendation for prostate cancer is not higher among male GPs. The factors associated with systematic recommendation for screening are both a matter of concern and a target for action, to improve adherence of individuals through GP commitment.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.cej.0000391570.71877.18 | DOI Listing |
JAMA Netw Open
January 2025
Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Importance: Evolving breast cancer treatments have led to improved outcomes but carry a substantial financial burden. The association of treatment costs with the cost-effectiveness of screening mammography is unknown.
Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of population-based breast cancer screening in the context of current treatment standards.
JAMA Netw Open
January 2025
Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Importance: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are the leading causes of mortality in the US. Large-scale population-based and mechanistic studies support a direct effect of CVD on accelerated tumor growth and spread, specifically in breast cancer.
Objective: To assess whether individuals presenting with advanced breast cancers are more likely to have prevalent CVD compared with those with early-stage breast cancers at the time of diagnosis.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol
January 2025
Service de Génomique des Tumeurs et Pharmacologie, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
The enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the primary catabolic pathway of fluoropyrimidines including 5 fluorouracil (5FU) and capecitabine. Cases of lethal toxicity have been reported in cancer patients with complete DPD deficiency receiving standard dose of 5FU or capecitabine. DPD is encoded by the pharmacogene DPYD in which more than 200 variants have been identified.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAm J Manag Care
December 2024
GRAIL, Inc., 1525 O'Brien Dr, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Email:
Objectives: Multicancer early detection (MCED) testing could result in earlier cancer diagnosis, thereby improving survival and reducing treatment costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of MCED testing plus usual care (UC) screening while accounting for the impact of clinical uncertainty and population heterogeneity for an MCED test with broad coverage of solid cancer incidence.
Study Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis of MCED testing plus UC vs UC alone in an adult population in the US.
J Clin Microbiol
December 2024
National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Unlabelled: Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype predicts cervical cancer risk, and genotyping could help guide the management of HPV positives as part of cervical screening. An isothermal amplification HPV extended genotyping test (ScreenFire HPV RS assay) can assay up to 96 samples/controls in 1 hour plus preparation time. A novel format with pre-aliquoted reagents and an anti-contamination component (Zebra BioDome) could simplify the HPV testing process and reduce the chances of post-amplification contamination.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!