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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |