Timely follow‐up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium |
| |
| Authors: | Chyke A. Doubeni MD MPH Nicole B. Gabler PhD MPH MHA Cosette M. Wheeler PhD Anne Marie McCarthy PhD Philip E. Castle PhD MPH Ethan A. Halm MD MPH Mitchell D. Schnall MD PhD Celette S. Skinner PhD Anna N. A. Tosteson ScD Donald L. Weaver MD Anil Vachani MD Shivan J. Mehta MD MBA Katharine A. Rendle PhD MSW MPH Stacey A. Fedewa PhD Douglas A. Corley MD PhD Katrina Armstrong MD |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Chair and The Presidential Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA;2. Senior Research Investigator, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA;3. Professor of Pathology, Department of Pathology, and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico Health Science Center, Albuquerque, NM;4. Assistant in Epidemiology, General Medicine Division, MA General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA;5. Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY;6. Professor of Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine and Professor of Clinical Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX;7. Chair and The Eugene P. Pendergrass Professor of Radiology, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Section, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;8. Parkland Community Medicine Professor, Department of Clinical Sciences and Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX;9. James J. Carroll Professor, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH;10. Professor of Pathology, Department of Pathology, UVM Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT;11. Assistant Professor of Medicine, Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;12. Assistant Professor of Medicine and Health Policy, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine and Penn Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;13. Assistant Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA;14. Screening and Risk Factor Surveillance, Surveillance and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA;15. Research Scientist III, Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, CA;16. Clinical Professor of Medicine, San Francisco Medical, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Francisco, CA;17. Physician in Chief, General Medicine Division, MA General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA |
| |
| Abstract: | Timely follow‐up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow‐up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer‐specific recommendations for times to follow‐up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow‐up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow‐up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low‐resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199–216 . © 2018 American Cancer Society . |
| |
| Keywords: | breast cervix uteri colon early detection of cancer early diagnosis lung mass screening neoplasm |
|
|
