ライフサイエンスコーパス: cancer screening

1 and nonphysicians are overdue for colorectal cancer screening.

2 United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening.

3 nical medicine for diagnosis, managements or cancer screening.

4 further understand the targets of pancreatic cancer screening.

5 profiling has a potential role in pancreatic cancer screening.

6 tected at digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening.

7 detected radiological abnormalities in lung cancer screening.

8 M versus DM + DBT in population-based breast cancer screening.

9 . showed the high potential of AI for breast cancer screening.

10 need to set a timeline for implementing lung cancer screening.

11 ACM benefit should not diminish advances in cancer screening.

12 ) for hemoglobin (Hb) are used in colorectal cancer screening.

13 evated risks of cancer and the importance of cancer screening.

14 ervices Task Force for population-based skin cancer screening.

15 tion of lung cancer with an emphasis on lung cancer screening.

16 roaches could increase uptake for colorectal cancer screening.

17 ing, well-child visits, HbA(1c) testing, and cancer screening.

18 inders involving lay health workers increase cancer screening.

19 oking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.

20 ble new point-of-care opportunities, such as cancer screening.

21 ies directly examined the benefit of thyroid cancer screening.

22 unburn, avoid sun protection, and avoid skin cancer screening.

23 efore the implementation of low-dose CT lung cancer screening.

24 Prostate cancer screening.

25 ctors and adhere to site-specific population cancer screening.

26 iary dermatological referral center for anal cancer screening.

27 e efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening.

28 unburn, avoid sun protection, and avoid skin cancer screening.

29 nal disease who were referred for colorectal cancer screening.

30 e for high-risk patients undergoing pancreas cancer screening.

31 vex-Brush or Cytobrush/spatula) for cervical cancer screening.

32 mprove the accuracy and efficiency of breast cancer screening.

33 elf-reported lifetime prevalence of cervical cancer screening.

34 odalities in individuals undergoing pancreas cancer screening.

35 ormation for the survey question on cervical cancer screening.

36 ring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

37 detection of OSCC during routine visual oral cancer screenings.

38 ufacturer-recommended guidelines for CT lung cancer screening (120-kVp tube voltage, 20-mAs reference

39 lovenian women attended 2 rounds of cervical cancer screening 3 years apart and provided data on HPV

40 arding the maximum age at which to stop lung cancer screening: 80 years according to the U.S.

41 ns, and prolonged length of stay; receipt of cancer screening; Agency for Healthcare Research and Qua

42 ety of Nephrology recommends against routine cancer screening among asymptomatic patients receiving m

43 elf-reported lifetime prevalence of cervical cancer screening among countries within regions and amon

44 Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends lung cancer screening among individuals aged 55-80 years with

45 To determine the frequency of colorectal cancer screening among patients on dialysis and the exte

46 hanges in HPV vaccination coverage, cervical cancer screening, an antecedent event to detection of a

47 llion US ever-smokers would qualify for lung cancer screening and 46,488 (95% CI, 43,924-49,053) lung

48 ect of physician notification for colorectal cancer screening and cancer detection on patients who we

49 he European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Brea

50 uropean Commission (EC) Initiative on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines.

51 n guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis".

52 s on the current evidence on LDCT-based lung cancer screening and discuss the clinical developments i

53 Cancer screening and early detection efforts have been p

54 able literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in

55 gs establish the potential of cfDNA for lung cancer screening and highlight the importance of risk-ma

56 Focused effort in cancer screening and increased public awareness of pollu

57 a focus on the clinical applications of lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation, the policy

58 COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation.

59 marized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation.

60 Integrated cancer screening and management in HIV clinics, especial

61 t is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodul

62 Breast cancer screening and new precision therapies have led to

63 l test (FIT) is commonly used for colorectal cancer screening and positive test results require follo

64 fits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes.

65 issue provides a clinical overview of breast cancer screening and prevention, focusing on risk assess

66 sting can provide a personalized approach to cancer screening and prevention, with optimal use of col

67 with ESRD, suggesting a need for persistent cancer screening and prevention.

68 apting novel QUS-based frameworks for breast cancer screening and rapid diagnosis in clinic.

69 ce decisions surrounding supplemental breast cancer screening and risk assessment.

70 riod, and more modest reductions in cervical cancer screening and sexual risk behaviors.

71 eview the current recommendations for breast cancer screening and surveillance for older patients, th

72 s for a growing number of clinical tests for cancer screening and surveillance.

73 lication of these data in formal settings of cancer screening and treatment is required.

74 e benefits and harms associated with thyroid cancer screening and treatment of early thyroid cancer i

75 concealed weapon detection in airports, skin cancer screenings) and communication technologies.

76 explained by differences in access to care, cancer screening, and other socioeconomic factors, dispa

77 rove our ability to select patients for lung cancer screening, and to assist with the characterizatio

78 concept opens new horizons into the current cancer screening approaches.

79 Non-invasive assays for early cancer screening are hampered by challenges in the isola

80 en clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer screening are reassessed.

81 es from around the world that address breast cancer screening, as well as their included evidence.

82 might be used to develop novel immune-based cancer screening assays.

83 d 33 146 records of women invited for breast cancer screening at the six centres between June 2, 2014

84 Universal cancer screening based on circulating DNA, proteins, met

85 Selection of candidates for lung cancer screening based on individual risk has been propo

86 r diet, exercise, advanced care planning, or cancer screening behaviors.

87 zed trials have shown that initiating breast cancer screening between ages 50 and 69 years and contin

88 entation of a campaign promoting annual skin cancer screening by FBSE, including training of PCPs, pr

89 dy cohort in 1996-2001 through 60 NHS breast cancer screening centres.

90 f validated in larger cohorts may facilitate cancer screening, classification and monitoring.

91 ecific actions required by the European lung cancer screening community to adopt before the implement

92 eaths in a region with population-based skin cancer screening compared with no change or slight incre

93 ental illness, this population receives less cancer screening compared with that of the general popul

94 ther people with mental illness undergo less cancer screening compared with the general population.

95 or advanced planning behaviors or engage in cancer screening, compared with individuals at average o

96 be a promising approach to improve cervical cancer screening coverage, especially among women with l

97 All 3 sets of lung cancer screening criteria represent cost-effective progr

98 Background Classification of lung cancer screening CT scans depends on measurement of lung

99 rom 2008-2015, both CIN2+ rates and cervical cancer screening declined in women aged 18-24 years.

100 mmography is the standard of care for breast cancer screening, dense breast tissue decreases mammogra

101 at have included disparate rates of prostate cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment.

102 Approaches to prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, surveillance, treatment and

103 Melanoma incidence and mortality, harms from cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy, and stage distrib

104 presentations are commonplace, and access to cancer screening, diagnostics, and treatment is often su

105 reast imaging may soon play a role in breast cancer screening: digital breast tomosynthesis, contrast

106 Due to changing guidelines for prostate cancer screening during the follow-up period, we investi

107 ng risk-based eligibility would improve lung cancer screening efficacy.

108 Cervical cancer screening efforts should be increased, particular

109 had better discrimination than standard lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (c-statistic = 0.6

110 e with mental illness to undergo appropriate cancer screening, especially women with schizophrenia.

111 from 370 individuals undergoing routine skin cancer screening examinations.

112 lic GBCA with breast MRI at high-risk breast cancer screening exhibit T1 alterations in deep brain nu

113 e to alkylating agents, should inform breast cancer screening for early detection.

114 resence of DDR germline variants could guide cancer screening for patients and their families and ser

115 HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV are especiall

116 are two of the biggest barriers to cervical cancer screening for women.

117 en who underwent dual-energy CEDM for breast cancer screening from December 2012 through April 2016.

118 d from high-risk patients, submitted to anal cancer screening from July 2016 to January 2017.

119 collected from 68 women who underwent breast cancer screening from October 2011 to September 2012 wit

120 sessment of survivors' adherence to the skin cancer screening guidelines associated with skin self-ex

121 ion and to the American Cancer Society (ACS) cancer screening guidelines for average-risk populations

122 In England, participation in breast cancer screening has been decreasing in the past 10 year

123 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic

124 nding clinical and cost benefits of prostate cancer screening has highlighted the lack of strategies

125 but high mortality (for example, pancreatic cancer), screening has focused on high-risk populations,

126 ecent changes in the periodicity of cervical cancer screening have led to questions about the role of

127 Some forms of cancer screening have the potential to reduce cancer inc

128 seases might affect patient participation in cancer screening, help-seeking for new and/or changing s

129 of LEMS diagnosis, is an effective tool for cancer screening in an independent, prospective study se

130 atement is to guide clinicians on colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults.

131 is to provide advice to clinicians on breast cancer screening in average-risk women based on a review

132 have significant implications for esophageal cancer screening in China, especially in rural areas.

133 uccessful implementation of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in Europe.

134 BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals should begin a

135 cians should consider discontinuing pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals when they are

136 ated protocol as a promising tool for breast cancer screening in high-risk patients.

137 lled trials of low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening in high-risk populations - the US Natio

138 e cervix show promise as biomarkers for anal cancer screening in HIV+ and at-risk HIV-negative women.

139 ritical to emphasize sun protection and skin cancer screening in individuals who tan indoors.

140 r, evidence on prevalence levels of cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries (LM

141 eat is the recommended approach for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings, but quite low

142 (HPV) tests are needed for primary cervical cancer screening in lower-resource regions.

143 se of these two orthogonal markers for liver cancer screening in patients with high-risk cirrhosis ge

144 ll published studies focusing on any type of cancer screening in patients with mental illness; and st

145 ess; and studies that reported prevalence of cancer screening in patients, or comparative measures be

146 The primary outcome was odds ratio (OR) of cancer screening in people with mental illness versus th

147 ce on the following: effectiveness of breast cancer screening in reducing breast cancer-specific and

148 DNA with the C-C mismatch SNP as a means of cancer screening in resource-limited areas.

149 We suggest reinforcing the cancer screening in T2DM patients to enable the early de

150 an women which were undergoing from cervical cancer screening in the Salud Digna clinics in 20 states

151 election could maximize the benefits of lung cancer screening in the U.S. population by including eve

152 the general population suggest that routine cancer screening in transplant recipients would allow fo

153 thin the newly-established recommended colon cancer screening interval warrants concern.

154 Colon cancer screening is being targeted toward patients on di

155 The cost-effectiveness for skin cancer screening is higher in women than in men.

156 ith low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical pra

157 hich population subgroups might benefit from cancer screening is unknown.

158 Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung

159 Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT reduces mortalit

160 Baseline cancer screening led to the diagnosis of cancer in 8 (6.

161 evaluate the performance of CEDM for breast cancer screening.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective

162 Skin cancer screening may improve melanoma outcomes and kerat

163 rmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery

164 ost-effectiveness of 2 population-based skin cancer screening methods and to assess their budget effe

165 ost-effectiveness of 2 population-based skin cancer screening methods and to assess their budget effe

166 Advances in cancer screening methods have opened avenues for inciden

167 The development of improved breast cancer screening methods is hindered by a lack of cancer

168 Cervical cancer screening might contribute to the prevention of a

169 atements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously d

170 894) directly addressed the harms of thyroid cancer screening, none of which suggested any serious ha

171 icularly regarding potential benefit of skin cancer screening on melanoma mortality.

172 er, this process is usually not suitable for cancer screening or evaluation of tumor responses to tre

173 ic changes with established implications for cancer screening or prevention.

174 dy of 1205 patients scheduled for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopies (50-75 ye

175 se of DNA methylation detection, in cervical cancer screening or triage of mildly abnormal cytology,

176 either exposed (because of high-risk breast cancer screening) or unexposed to only gadoterate meglum

177 asymptomatic women who presented for breast cancer screening over a 3-year period beginning in 2011.

178 procedures and emotional distress for breast cancer screening participants if it is used as a complem

179 of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a l

180 nly limited evidence was identified for skin cancer screening, particularly regarding potential benef

181 Continuing annual breast cancer screening past age 75 years did not result in sub

182 PICTs do not have, or have poorly developed, cancer screening, pathology, oncology, surgical, and pal

183 stitution (P > .05 for all).ConclusionBreast cancer screening performance is maintained within benchm

184 ng Screen Uptake Trial, the West London Lung Cancer Screening pilot and the Yorkshire Lung Screening

185 ia as a priority issue and designing gastric cancer screening policies are also recommended.

186 harms, and feasibility of implementing lung cancer screening policies based on risk prediction model

187 , cancer treatment characteristics, and skin cancer screening practice.

188 Purpose To examine the outcomes of a breast cancer screening program based on digital breast tomosyn

189 aluate the real-life performance of a breast cancer screening program for women with different catego

190 g colonoscopy within the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Poland, from January 1, 2004

191 Implementing DBT into a U.S. breast cancer screening program significantly decreased the scr

192 e used as a bio-analytical tool for a Breast Cancer Screening Program using liquid biopsy in the form

193 32 centers in the Polish National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, from 2000 through 2011.

194 f the English National Health Service Breast Cancer Screening Program, together with estimates of DM

195 ing colonoscopy within a National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, we associated increased ADR wi

196 ing data from the Polish National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, we developed a risk classifica

197 off and the cost-effectiveness of a prostate cancer screening program.

198 women participating in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

199 e individuals were enrolled in Taiwan's Oral Cancer Screening Program.

200 VRC performs well in an urban, diverse lung cancer screening program.

201 ers were based on data from the Dutch breast cancer screening program.

202 The database used for the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) derives participant in

203 t from a practically feasible PRS-based lung cancer screening programme for precision prevention in C

204 A national colorectal cancer screening programme started in England in 2013, o

205 easible within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme, is safe, and has significant

206 blood test as part of the UK national bowel cancer screening programme.

207 HPV-based cervical cancer screening programmes might help to stratify anal

208 pe of future implementation research on lung cancer screening programmes referred to as Screening Pla

209 The main purpose of cancer screening programmes should not be to detect all

210 n nodules are reported among smokers in lung cancer screening programmes.

211 of Health Policy Research Programme and NHS Cancer Screening Programmes.

212 We discuss implications for race-adapted cancer screening programs and clinical trials to reduce

213 developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules

214 ayer perspective) of 2 population-based skin cancer screening programs in Belgium compared with the a

215 ayer perspective) of 2 population-based skin cancer screening programs in Belgium compared with the a

216 he effectiveness of vaccination and cervical cancer screening programs.

217 ed when selecting the best approach for anal cancer screening programs.

218 could improve eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening programs.

219 hnologists may function as readers in breast cancer screening programs.

220 T analysis of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening provides a comprehensive osteoporosis a

221 To describe a skin cancer screening quality initiative in a large health ca

222 stem interventions (n = 88) indicated higher cancer screening rates with patient navigation; telephon

223 to be completed, this study will help update cancer screening recommendations for patients with the M

224 s (HPV) vaccine uptake and changing cervical cancer screening recommendations.

225 feasibility and efficacy of a comprehensive cancer screening regimen in Li-Fraumeni syndrome, using

226 The appropriate age range for breast cancer screening remains a matter of debate.

227 We aimed to investigate if routine cervical cancer screening results-namely high-risk human papillom

228 plasma ctDNA testing can also be applied to cancer screening, risk stratification and quantification

229 ch to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessa

230 cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting.

231 ers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings.

232 Anal cancer screening should be considered for HIV-positive w

233 BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients determ

234 BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients with g

235 Benefits and limitations of pancreatic cancer screening should be discussed with individuals wh

236 limitations and potential risks of pancreas cancer screening should be discussed with patients befor

237 Effective breast cancer screening should detect early-stage cancer and pr

238 Future research on skin cancer screening should focus on evaluating the effectiv

239 Prospective studies evaluating cancer screening strategies in adults with unprovoked VT

240 lusion Studies must be performed to optimize cancer screening strategies in individuals with T2DM.

241 he cervix with acetic acid (VIA) as cervical cancer screening strategy in resource-poor settings.

242 in this work is based on reports of pancreas cancer screening studies in high-risk individuals and ex

243 In the 4 ovarian cancer screening studies, low prevalence of ovarian canc

244 in the context of knowledge gained from lung cancer screening studies.

245 Baseline evaluation of a prospective cancer screening study was conducted from June 1, 2012,

246 vanced neoplasms (AN) in a single colorectal cancer screening study.

247 .5 years, 11.6% of patients received a colon cancer screening test (57.9 tests per 1000 person-years)

248 T 2: Clinicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient on the basis of a

249 treatment-related morbidity; harms of breast cancer screening; test performance characteristics of di

250 We examined colorectal cancer screening tests according to quartiles of risk of

251 e challenge of developing safe and effective cancer screening tests.

252 situ has been emphasised by data for breast-cancer screening that show substantial increases in the

253 gh mammography is a gold standard for breast cancer screening, the number of cancers that cannot be d

254 making conversation about PSA-based prostate cancer screening, the PSA-based screening strategy that

255 ilizing high throughput chemical imaging for cancer screening, thereby reducing pathologist workload

256 ctive surveillance is important for prostate cancer screening to be cost-effective.

257 For cancer screening to be successful, it should primarily d

258 amined in other ongoing trials of colorectal cancer screening to help clarify if different screening

259 their surveillance and inclusion in cervical cancer screening triage.

260 CO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian) Cancer Screening Trial (n = 41 856).

261 0,672 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) ever-smoking participants

262 rostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening trial and the European Randomized Study

263 area under the curve) on 6,716 National Lung Cancer Screening Trial cases, and performs similarly on

264 the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial control group.

265 LCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) found no reduction.

266 rostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

267 the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

268 rostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.We examined prediagnostic serum c

269 Validation in lung cancer screening trials and not a clinical setting.

270 imes and lead time distributions from breast cancer screening trials are used to estimate obligate (o

271 has primarily been reserved for certain lung cancer screening trials rather than clinical practice.

272 the outcomes of large international prostate cancer screening trials were reported.

273 eb-based data sharing from the PLCO and NLST cancer screening trials.

274 y within the United Kingdom Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

275 the UK following the success of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial, which included the Liverp

276 Colorectal cancer screening using conventional colonoscopy lacks mo

277 Selection of individuals for lung cancer screening using individual risk is superior to se

278 Lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography has

279 tions of solid lung nodules detected at lung cancer screening using manual measurements of average di

280 of 857 mug/kg, and exceeded the human health cancer screening value of 12 mug/kg in 48% of the nation

281 en offering vaccination both at the cervical cancer screening visit and during sexually transmitted i

282 campaign, vaccination at the first cervical cancer screening visit, vaccination at sexual health cli

283 accination to adults, especially at cervical cancer screening visits (for women) and during STI consu

284 Breast cancer screening was not associated with a reduction in

285 For cervical cancer screening, we used the SurePath liquid-based cyto

286 England who were invited for routine breast cancer screening were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive

287 o increase their participation in colorectal cancer screening, which could, in turn, motivate their p

288 All patients undergoing lung cancer screening who underwent an initial baseline scree

289 50 through 70 years eligible for colorectal cancer screening with a positive FIT result who had a fo

290 Lung cancer screening with chest computed tomography (CT) red

291 Services (CMS) eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening with CT require detailed smoking inform

292 Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)

293 Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can save lives.

294 men over the age of 40 undergo yearly breast cancer screening with mammography, measurement of breast

295 on (at ages 25 to 30 years) of annual breast cancer screening with MRI, with or without mammography,

296 odel-based and assume implementation of lung cancer screening with short-term effectiveness similar t

297 eTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and

298 was participation (ie, attendance at breast cancer screening) within 90 days of the date of the firs

299 e accuracy, consistency and adoption of lung cancer screening worldwide.

300 the most commonly used method for colorectal cancer screening worldwide.