ライフサイエンスコーパス: cancer screening

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

2 iary dermatological referral center for anal cancer screening.

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

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

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

6 healthy controls and men undergoing prostate cancer screening.

7 ill the criteria for use in primary cervical cancer screening.

8 h low SES to participate in population-based cancer screening.

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

10 risk for HG-AIN+ and should be offered anal cancer screening.

11 o consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.

12 -RADS, a classification system for LDCT lung cancer screening.

13 ctive trials indicate its benefit for breast cancer screening.

14 ng about the value of varying intensities of cancer screening.

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

16 nostic chest imaging and as a result of lung cancer screening.

17 tion is a potentially relevant tool for anal cancer screening.

18 endations did not appreciably alter prostate cancer screening.

19 the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.

20 ups often recommend different strategies for cancer screening.

21 igh-risk group in need of more frequent skin cancer screening.

22 icians and women in discussions about breast cancer screening.

23 state-specific antigen (PSA) -based prostate cancer screening.

24 d challenges as they begin to implement lung cancer screening.

25 ly to the EIA, useful for HPV-based cervical cancer screening.

26 hich specific groups should begin colorectal cancer screening.

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

28 pillomavirus (HPV) are critical for cervical cancer screening.

29 ite; and second, to study the impact of skin cancer screening.

30 of LDCT, thus improving the efficacy of lung cancer screening.

31 ould improve the effectiveness of colorectal-cancer screening.

32 roaches could increase uptake for colorectal cancer screening.

33 c resonance (MR) colonography-for colorectal cancer screening.

34 ty demonstrate an urgent need for colorectal cancer screening.

35 ghlights their potential utility in prostate cancer screening.

36 health care, which may be a barrier to early cancer screening.

37 diagnosis is common with breast and prostate cancer screening.

38 on the likelihood of the uptake of cervical cancer screening.

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

40 oking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.

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

42 ies directly examined the benefit of thyroid cancer screening.

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

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

45 Prostate cancer screening.

46 detection of OSCC during routine visual oral cancer screenings.

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

48 ter SCREEN (2004-2008), and nation-wide skin cancer screening (2008-2010)) to a reference region (Saa

49 Smokers and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening (30 pack-year smoking history, ages 55-

50 nited Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, 46,237 women, age 50 years or older un

51 ing prostate specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening a 'D' recommendation.

52 iabetes, chlamydia screening, and colorectal cancer screening (adjusted P < 0.05 for each).

53 now compete with colonoscopy as viable colon cancer screening alternatives.

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

55 mmend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qu

56 mine the preliminary effectiveness of breast cancer screening among Chinese females, 1226714 women ag

57 nal exposure of healthcare workers; (5) anal cancer screening among men who have sex with men (MSM);

58 ovides insight into the efficacy of cervical cancer screening among older women.

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

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

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

62 al changes should be made to the approach to cancer screening and care, such as use of new terminolog

63 Differences in prostate cancer screening and detection probably contribute to di

64 atality and highlights the need for improved cancer screening and detection.

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

66 no robust noninvasive methods for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis.

67 over blood-based biomarkers relevant to lung cancer screening and early detection.

68 uals who underwent colonoscopy primarily for cancer screening and from 17 HIV-1-infected and 20 healt

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

70 generative disease diagnosis, as well as for cancer screening and monitoring.

71 ted evidence on the association between skin cancer screening and mortality.

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

73 ART initiation along with ongoing aggressive cancer screening and prevention efforts throughout the c

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

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

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

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

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

79 and could improve the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.

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

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

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

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

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

85 Colorectal and breast cancer screening are used as examples to show the utilit

86 hind and extent of overdetection in prostate cancer screening as well as possible ways to avoid unnec

87 patients who underwent colonoscopy for colon cancer screening (asymptomatic) and patients for surveil

88 average-risk adults who underwent colorectal cancer screening at 84 gastrointestinal practice sites f

89 al Pathology recommend cessation of cervical cancer screening at age 65 years for women with an "adeq

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

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

92 randomly assigned to undergo limited occult-cancer screening (basic blood testing, chest radiography

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

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

95 Skin cancer screening can be improved with a better understan

96 tudy from a teaching hospital and colorectal cancer screening centre between 2003 and 2011.

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

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

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

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

101 11 healthy individuals undergoing colorectal cancer screening (controls), collected during colonoscop

102 Prostate cancer screening currently consists of serum prostate-sp

103 simple and noninvasive approach for cervical cancer screening, data comparing HPV genotyping in urine

104 ealth status and life expectancy when making cancer screening decisions for elderly persons.

105 Harms and benefits of cancer screening depend on age and comorbid conditions,

106 ition to a high rate of benign nodules, lung cancer screening detects a large number of indolent canc

107 A grand challenge is to develop a general cancer screening device to accurately measure 50-100 pro

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

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

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

111 o evaluate urine-based sampling for cervical cancer screening, epidemiologic studies, and postvaccina

112 cancers were identified during partner oral cancer screening examinations.

113 TF) recommends computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 years wh

114 r recommendations for stopping or continuing cancer screening for individual patients.

115 lesions and may be used in primary cervical cancer screening for women >/=30 years of age.

116 ns, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening for women 70 years and older who are in

117 de evidence-based recommendations for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast can

118 st (the cobas HPV test) for primary cervical cancer screening for women over the age of 25 years, wit

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

120 for clinicians by assessing current prostate cancer screening guidelines developed by other organizat

121 A number of recent findings may help direct cancer screening guidelines in PLWHA.

122 Guideline Clearinghouse to identify prostate cancer screening guidelines in the United States and sel

123 Prior to 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines issued by US-based expert bo

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

125 Although the current paradigm of prostate cancer screening has led to a decrease in advanced disea

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

127 ith the introduction of the nation-wide skin cancer screening in 2008 (+47% for women and +40% for me

128 hy, and sputum cytologic evaluation for lung cancer screening in asymptomatic persons who are at aver

129 recommended equally strongly for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk persons.

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

131 ical, and prostate cancer) or limited occult-cancer screening in combination with CT.

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

133 MRI) as an adjunct to mammography for breast cancer screening in female cancer survivors treated with

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

135 irus (HPV), is being considered for cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries.

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

137 By using low-dose CT performed for lung cancer screening in older, heavy smokers, a simple visua

138 an increasing role of ultrasound for breast cancer screening in patients with dense breast, conventi

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

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

141 aphy (CT) is now widely recommended for lung cancer screening in the United States, although concerns

142 aphy as the major imaging test in colorectal cancer screening in the United States, with MR colonogra

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

144 istics affect the current uptake of cervical cancer screening in UK.

145 Colon cancer screening is being targeted toward patients on di

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

147 uded in well-woman visits even when cervical cancer screening is not required.

148 ate cancer in Asian countries where prostate cancer screening is not widely utilized.

149 Cancer screening is one approach to reducing cancer-rela

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

151 Colorectal cancer screening is thought to be an effective tool with

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

153 Prostate cancer screening is very uncommon in these countries, an

154 When cancer screening leads to benefits, an optimal intensity

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

156 d a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update and a s

157 Skin cancer screening may improve melanoma outcomes and kerat

158 harmful BRCA mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery

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

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

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

162 9 participants of the Dutch and Belgian Lung Cancer Screening (NELSON) trial, in whom quantitative CA

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

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

165 er than 65 years of age discontinue cervical cancer screening on the basis of evidence that screening

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

167 to 1 dermatologist for melanoma and/or skin cancer screening or surveillance.

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

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

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

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

172 nts aged 18-70 years referred for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic asse

173 Studies suggest that cervical cancer screening practice in the United States is ineffi

174 ts in interventions to improve U.S. cervical cancer screening practice.

175 Current cervical cancer screening practice; improved adherence to guideli

176 110 participants were recruited from a colon cancer screening program at Howard University Hospital.

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

178 went screening as part of the Spanish Breast Cancer Screening Program between 1994 and 2010 and who w

179 50-69 years enrolled in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program during 1996-2010.

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

181 A tailored breast cancer screening program in 40-49-year-old women yielded

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

183 ng participants of a population-based breast cancer screening program in the Netherlands between 1993

184 n of screening colonoscopy into the national cancer screening program should be implemented to detect

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

186 the first round of the Barcelona colorectal cancer screening program, from December 2009 through Feb

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

188 ivorship program, and participants in a lung cancer screening program.

189 women participating in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

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

191 ples were taken from patients from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (asymptomatic but faecal occu

192 Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeco

193 ectal polyps is the cornerstone of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in the UK.

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

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

196 ore the implementation of international lung cancer screening programmes.

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

198 the nine core elements of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs enumerated in a recent ACCP/AT

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

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

201 the potential influence of population-based cancer screening programs in estimates of association fr

202 sites wishing to develop and implement lung cancer screening programs.

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

204 could improve eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening programs.

205 ening in the NLST to inform and improve lung-cancer-screening programs.

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

207 provements in patient selection for prostate cancer screening; PSA interpretation (e.g. by correcting

208 convened a committee with expertise in lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodule evaluation, and imple

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

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

211 (1980-1999) and a state-of-the-art cervical cancer screening registry in New Mexico (2007-2009).

212 In the context of cancer screening, reliance on predefined single-threshol

213 30 radiology facilities within the 3 breast cancer screening research centers of the Population-base

214 Women with abnormal cervical cancer screening results are referred to colposcopy and

215 ferred to colposcopy after abnormal cervical cancer screening results.

216 cases into the normal workflow of the breast cancer screening service of an urban hospital over the c

217 logists who traditionally provide colorectal cancer screening services and treatment.

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

219 cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting.

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

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

222 pation of deprived individuals in colorectal cancer screening should be directed at all stages of the

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

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

225 Prostate cancer screening significantly declined among men older

226 Cancer screening strategies have commonly adopted single

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

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

229 e estimates of outcomes for different breast cancer screening strategies in the United States.

230 Research should also explore other breast cancer screening strategies.

231 CP strongly encourages clinicians to adopt a cancer screening strategy that focuses on reaching all e

232 For colonoscopy to remain the dominant colon cancer screening strategy, it is imperative that we cont

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

234 n male heavy smokers participating in a lung cancer screening study (n = 2,640).

235 ive from the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study (UK_FOCSS) after quality-control

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

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

238 .5 years, 11.6% of patients received a colon cancer screening test (57.9 tests per 1000 person-years)

239 noscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States.

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

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

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

243 d as an effective tool for use in colorectal cancer screening that is increasingly being disseminated

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

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

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

247 liac disease, and age-appropriate colorectal cancer screening) to exclude organic diseases that can m

248 eventually may have potential as a powerful cancer-screening tool for the general population.

249 0,672 Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) ever-smoking participants

250 d the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), 1993-2010).

251 f the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO).

252 (the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial [PLCO] and the National Institute

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

254 the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial cohort (54,562 women aged 55-74 y

255 andomly selected from the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial cohort, with equal numbers of nod

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

257 olled Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy versus

258 ostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was analyzed by using ultra-high-

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

260 the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, a large multicenter clinical tri

261 udy, Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, and MD Anderson Cancer Controls

262 the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, conducted from 1993 through 2001

263 the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carot

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

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

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

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

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

269 he US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

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

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

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

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

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

275 Colorectal cancer screening using conventional colonoscopy lacks mo

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

277 compelling evidence of the efficacy of lung cancer screening using low-dose helical computed tomogra

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

279 idence of colorectal cancer, uptake of bowel cancer screening varies across demographic groups.

280 ency of overdiagnosis in breast and prostate cancer screening vary greatly across studies.

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 Cervical cancer screening was not included.

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

287 ate cancer are also associated with prostate cancer screening, which may induce a bias in epidemiolog

288 ntrol study in 822 men undergoing colorectal cancer screening who were recruited to also undergo uppe

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

290 a are insufficient to recommend routine anal cancer screening with anal cytology in persons living wi

291 and implementation of population-based lung cancer screening with chest computed tomography in the U

292 tomatic adults undergoing routine colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography at two medical cen

293 Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)

294 Lung cancer screening with LDCT appears cost-effective in the

295 eventive Services Task Force recommends lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT

296 Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT

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

298 Prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA

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

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