Cargando…

Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Selby, Kevin, Sedki, Mai, Levine, Emma, Kamineni, Aruna, Green, Beverly B, Vachani, Anil, Haas, Jennifer S, Ritzwoller, Debra P, Croswell, Jennifer M, Ohikere, Kabiru, Doria-Rose, V Paul, Rendle, Katharine A, Chubak, Jessica, Lafata, Jennifer Elston, Inadomi, John, Corley, Douglas A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10086636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36752508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djad028
_version_ 1785022192412524544
author Selby, Kevin
Sedki, Mai
Levine, Emma
Kamineni, Aruna
Green, Beverly B
Vachani, Anil
Haas, Jennifer S
Ritzwoller, Debra P
Croswell, Jennifer M
Ohikere, Kabiru
Doria-Rose, V Paul
Rendle, Katharine A
Chubak, Jessica
Lafata, Jennifer Elston
Inadomi, John
Corley, Douglas A
author_facet Selby, Kevin
Sedki, Mai
Levine, Emma
Kamineni, Aruna
Green, Beverly B
Vachani, Anil
Haas, Jennifer S
Ritzwoller, Debra P
Croswell, Jennifer M
Ohikere, Kabiru
Doria-Rose, V Paul
Rendle, Katharine A
Chubak, Jessica
Lafata, Jennifer Elston
Inadomi, John
Corley, Douglas A
author_sort Selby, Kevin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types. METHODS: We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics’ definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety. RESULTS: We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10086636
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100866362023-04-12 Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review Selby, Kevin Sedki, Mai Levine, Emma Kamineni, Aruna Green, Beverly B Vachani, Anil Haas, Jennifer S Ritzwoller, Debra P Croswell, Jennifer M Ohikere, Kabiru Doria-Rose, V Paul Rendle, Katharine A Chubak, Jessica Lafata, Jennifer Elston Inadomi, John Corley, Douglas A J Natl Cancer Inst Review BACKGROUND: Multiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types. METHODS: We performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics’ definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety. RESULTS: We identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Considerably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139 Oxford University Press 2023-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10086636/ /pubmed/36752508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djad028 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Selby, Kevin
Sedki, Mai
Levine, Emma
Kamineni, Aruna
Green, Beverly B
Vachani, Anil
Haas, Jennifer S
Ritzwoller, Debra P
Croswell, Jennifer M
Ohikere, Kabiru
Doria-Rose, V Paul
Rendle, Katharine A
Chubak, Jessica
Lafata, Jennifer Elston
Inadomi, John
Corley, Douglas A
Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review
title Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review
title_full Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review
title_fullStr Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review
title_short Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review
title_sort test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10086636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36752508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djad028
work_keys_str_mv AT selbykevin testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT sedkimai testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT levineemma testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT kamineniaruna testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT greenbeverlyb testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT vachanianil testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT haasjennifers testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT ritzwollerdebrap testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT croswelljenniferm testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT ohikerekabiru testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT doriarosevpaul testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT rendlekatharinea testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT chubakjessica testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT lafatajenniferelston testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT inadomijohn testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview
AT corleydouglasa testperformancemetricsforbreastcervicalcolonandlungcancerscreeningasystematicreview