Cargando…

Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to synthesize evidence comparing cancer screening receipt between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception through April 1, 2010 using sea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Corkum, Mark, Hayden, Jill A., Kephart, George, Urquhart, Robin, Schlievert, Coralynne, Porter, Geoffrey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11764-013-0278-6
_version_ 1782279557805506560
author Corkum, Mark
Hayden, Jill A.
Kephart, George
Urquhart, Robin
Schlievert, Coralynne
Porter, Geoffrey
author_facet Corkum, Mark
Hayden, Jill A.
Kephart, George
Urquhart, Robin
Schlievert, Coralynne
Porter, Geoffrey
author_sort Corkum, Mark
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to synthesize evidence comparing cancer screening receipt between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception through April 1, 2010 using search terms related to cancer, survivorship, and cancer screening. Studies were included if they reported a comparison of cancer screening receipt between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls. We performed a meta-analysis on the effect of cancer survivorship on breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening receipt. RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 1,778 titles, of which 20 met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. In our meta-analyses, cancer survivors were more likely to be screened for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer than non-cancer controls (pooled odds ratio, 1.27; 95 % CI, 1.19–1.36). We observed significant heterogeneity between studies, most of which remained unexplained after subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Important contextual factors, such as how screening programs operate, were not reported in the primary literature. Many cancer survivors (along with non-cancer controls) still did not receive cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Compared with non-cancer controls, cancer survivors receive more frequent screening for new primary breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Future research should seek to determine whether increased uptake of cancer screening is associated with improved outcomes during cancer survivorship. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that cancer survivors received more frequent screening for second primary breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers than non-cancer controls. As many cancer survivors are at an increased risk of developing a second primary cancer, future research should seek to determine whether this increased uptake of cancer screening in cancer survivors leads to improved outcomes during cancer survivorship.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3734601
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37346012013-08-08 Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis Corkum, Mark Hayden, Jill A. Kephart, George Urquhart, Robin Schlievert, Coralynne Porter, Geoffrey J Cancer Surviv Review PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to synthesize evidence comparing cancer screening receipt between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception through April 1, 2010 using search terms related to cancer, survivorship, and cancer screening. Studies were included if they reported a comparison of cancer screening receipt between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls. We performed a meta-analysis on the effect of cancer survivorship on breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening receipt. RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 1,778 titles, of which 20 met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. In our meta-analyses, cancer survivors were more likely to be screened for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer than non-cancer controls (pooled odds ratio, 1.27; 95 % CI, 1.19–1.36). We observed significant heterogeneity between studies, most of which remained unexplained after subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Important contextual factors, such as how screening programs operate, were not reported in the primary literature. Many cancer survivors (along with non-cancer controls) still did not receive cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Compared with non-cancer controls, cancer survivors receive more frequent screening for new primary breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Future research should seek to determine whether increased uptake of cancer screening is associated with improved outcomes during cancer survivorship. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that cancer survivors received more frequent screening for second primary breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers than non-cancer controls. As many cancer survivors are at an increased risk of developing a second primary cancer, future research should seek to determine whether this increased uptake of cancer screening in cancer survivors leads to improved outcomes during cancer survivorship. Springer US 2013-05-05 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3734601/ /pubmed/23645522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11764-013-0278-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2013 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Review
Corkum, Mark
Hayden, Jill A.
Kephart, George
Urquhart, Robin
Schlievert, Coralynne
Porter, Geoffrey
Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11764-013-0278-6
work_keys_str_mv AT corkummark screeningfornewprimarycancersincancersurvivorscomparedtononcancercontrolsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT haydenjilla screeningfornewprimarycancersincancersurvivorscomparedtononcancercontrolsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kephartgeorge screeningfornewprimarycancersincancersurvivorscomparedtononcancercontrolsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT urquhartrobin screeningfornewprimarycancersincancersurvivorscomparedtononcancercontrolsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT schlievertcoralynne screeningfornewprimarycancersincancersurvivorscomparedtononcancercontrolsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT portergeoffrey screeningfornewprimarycancersincancersurvivorscomparedtononcancercontrolsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis