ライフサイエンスコーパス: colorectal cancer screening

1 physicians and nonphysicians are overdue for colorectal cancer screening.

2 own intestinal disease who were referred for colorectal cancer screening.

3 e clear potential to increase compliance for colorectal cancer screening.

4 e of the largest contributors to the cost of colorectal cancer screening.

5 from a research tool to a viable option for colorectal cancer screening.

6 he proportion of available capacity used for colorectal cancer screening.

7 portions of available capacity were used for colorectal cancer screening.

8 knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding colorectal cancer screening.

9 y or colonoscopy may contribute to deficient colorectal cancer screening.

10 rostate cancer screening is more common than colorectal cancer screening.

11 tests (FITs) for hemoglobin (Hb) are used in colorectal cancer screening.

12 ound to carry the mutation received lifelong colorectal cancer screening.

13 alone cannot be considered a substitute for colorectal cancer screening.

14 conomic approaches could increase uptake for colorectal cancer screening.

15 stinal cancers this year were in the area of colorectal cancer screening.

16 is expanding, increasing the availability of colorectal cancer screening.

17 d $920 000 (95% CI, $700 000-$1 200 000) for colorectal cancer screening.

18 ancer screening, and from 39.8% to 74.4% for colorectal cancer screening.

19 ive compared with established strategies for colorectal cancer screening.

20 ts of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

21 unclear whether they are cost-effective for colorectal cancer screening.

22 4.8% were undergoing colonoscopy for routine colorectal cancer screening.

23 Outpatient colonoscopy is important for colorectal cancer screening.

24 t cancer screening and 30.7% in Thailand for colorectal cancer screening.

25 ematic clinical surveillance including early colorectal cancer screening.

26 lood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening.

27 screening, and 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.71-0.73) for colorectal cancer screening.

28 t ages at which specific groups should begin colorectal cancer screening.

29 and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography-for colorectal cancer screening.

30 cer mortality demonstrate an urgent need for colorectal cancer screening.

31 e colonoscopy increases uptake of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening.

32 There are many test options available for colorectal cancer screening.

33 e needed to establish their role for general colorectal cancer screening.

34 o inform their update of recommendations for colorectal cancer screening.

35 of patients undergoing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.

36 irtual colonoscopy, and fecal DNA testing in colorectal cancer screening.

37 y colonography is a promising new method for colorectal cancer screening.

38 e performance of nonendoscopic approaches to colorectal cancer screening.

39 the intervention firm attended a workshop on colorectal cancer screening.

40 sive test could improve the effectiveness of colorectal-cancer screening.

41 COVID-19 has decreased colorectal cancer screenings.

42 e points (95% CI, 0.33 to 2.79) for 24-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.22 percentage points (95%

43 ce interval [CI], 0.28 to 2.34) for 12-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.56 percentage points (95%

44 th a 1.61% (95% CI, 0.50%-2.73%) increase in colorectal cancer screening, 2.17% (95% CI, 1.39%-2.96%)

45 ncer screenings followed by 21 months of 75% colorectal cancer screenings; (2) 18 months of 50% scree

46 22 patients of average risk (5.2%) underwent colorectal cancer screening; 21 930 of 469 045 women of

47 HCs in states that did not implement an APM: colorectal cancer screening (3.24 percentage points [pp]

48 , compared with those who did not, underwent colorectal cancer screening (69% vs 60%; P < .01).

49 in an estimated 1 176 942 to 2 014 164 fewer colorectal cancer screenings, 8346 to 12 894 fewer color

50 This suggests that colorectal cancer screening, a more recent intervention,

51 creening would be less common among men than colorectal cancer screening, a preventive service of bro

52 on of mammography, Papanicolaou testing, and colorectal cancer screening according to U.S. Preventive

53 colaou test, mammography, comorbidities, and colorectal cancer screening adherence) were extracted fr

54 lment duration, underscreening duration, and colorectal cancer screening adherence.

55 ents with diabetes, chlamydia screening, and colorectal cancer screening (adjusted P < 0.05 for each)

56 The necessary frequency of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening after a negative examination

57 To determine the frequency of colorectal cancer screening among patients on dialysis a

58 ted literacy may be an overlooked barrier in colorectal cancer screening among veterans.

59 easures of health care quality (cervical and colorectal cancer screening and body mass index [BMI] as

60 res the effect of physician notification for colorectal cancer screening and cancer detection on pati

61 There are no robust noninvasive methods for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis.

62 stimates of the current number of endoscopic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up examinations b

63 d video had no effect on the overall rate of colorectal cancer screening and only modestly improved s

64 munochemical test (FIT) is commonly used for colorectal cancer screening and positive test results re

65 Colorectal cancer screening and prevention is a pivotal

66 tion arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential fe

67 Increasing use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance of colorect

68 olonoscopy and could improve the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.

69 are aware of the known mortality benefit of colorectal cancer screening and the uncertain benefits o

70 ged to ensure that eligible patients undergo colorectal cancer screening and to guide patients in cho

71 ociated with an estimated additional 655 825 colorectal cancer screenings and 2715 colorectal cancer

72 ociated with an estimated additional 588 844 colorectal cancer screenings and 2836 colorectal cancer

73 The frequency of colorectal-cancer screening and abdominal symptoms was s

74 mparing changes in 12- and 24-month rates of colorectal-cancer screening and mammography between work

75 neoplasia represents the primary target for colorectal-cancer screening and prevention.

76 ening, -44.9% (95% CI, -53.8% to -36.1%) for colorectal cancer screening, and -51.8% (95% CI, -64.7%

77 olorectal cancer or polyps, had not received colorectal cancer screening, and had at least one visit

78 Several noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer screening are available, but their eff

79 riety of noninvasive molecular approaches to colorectal cancer screening are emerging with potential

80 Strategies to increase compliance for colorectal cancer screening are proposed.

81 The benefits of endoscopic testing for colorectal-cancer screening are uncertain.

82 In patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening, aspirin use should not be b

83 om 327,785 average-risk adults who underwent colorectal cancer screening at 84 gastrointestinal pract

84 rationale for considering the initiation of colorectal cancer screening at age 45 in Iran.

85 izations now recommend starting average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 years, but the pre

86 19 pandemic were found for breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening based on income and immigran

87 Colorectal cancer screening beginning at age 50 is recom

88 nfluenza vaccination, cholesterol screening, colorectal cancer screening, bone densitometry, and mamm

89 ination can be a cost-effective component of colorectal cancer screening, but further modeling effort

90 e studies reaffirm the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, but illustrate that aspirin

91 Colorectal cancer screening can reduce both incidence an

92 Colorectal cancer screening can substantially reduce pre

93 d for the study from a teaching hospital and colorectal cancer screening centre between 2003 and 2011

94 his economic evaluation of liquid biopsy for colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy was a cost-effe

95 as have lower rates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening compared with women living i

96 significantly more likely to be adherent to colorectal cancer screening compared with women residing

97 ferent active choice interventions had lower colorectal cancer screening completion rates among indiv

98 ificantly increased both recommendations and colorectal cancer screening completion rates among veter

99 psies) and 11 healthy individuals undergoing colorectal cancer screening (controls), collected during

100 es included 119 113 individuals eligible for colorectal cancer screening (CRCS), 7398 eligible for lu

101 We used data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database among individuals a

102 tional) colonoscopy (WLC) is widely used for colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis and surveillance

103 ho do not have disabilities, and patterns in colorectal cancer screening disparities are inconsistent

104 Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening disparities existed prior to

105 Many potential barriers to colorectal cancer screening exist for the patient and th

106 omes across 4 scenarios: (1) 9 months of 50% colorectal cancer screenings followed by 21 months of 75

107 ive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended colorectal cancer screening for adults 50 years of age o

108 Many expert panels recommend colorectal cancer screening for average-risk asymptomati

109 -date PSA screening is also more common than colorectal cancer screening for men of all ages.

110 nd the American Geriatrics Society recommend colorectal cancer screening for older adults unless they

111 Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus

112 ed 50-74 years old invited to participate in colorectal cancer screening from 2018 to 2021 combined w

113 ecutive adult outpatients undergoing routine colorectal cancer screening from April 2004 to December

114 ral areas were less likely to be adherent to colorectal cancer screening guidelines but were similarl

115 , 2.85; 95% CI, 1.78-4.56; P < .001) but not colorectal cancer screening guidelines.

116 Population-based colorectal cancer screening has been shown to reduce can

117 Recent guidelines for colorectal cancer screening have reached different concl

118 With widespread colorectal cancer screening, heightened awareness, and i

119 isease and HCC/CCA may be better tailored to colorectal cancer screening ideals.

120 ality, and stage distribution in relation to colorectal cancer screening implementation in European c

121 be largely explained by different levels of colorectal cancer screening implementation.

122 e on prostate cancer screening compared with colorectal cancer screening in 27 states, while up-to-da

123 ling study using 3 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer screening in a hypothetical cohort of

124 ination has been recognized as an option for colorectal cancer screening in Americans with average ri

125 rast barium enema examinations performed for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults older

126 guidance statement is to guide clinicians on colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults.

127 methods are recommended equally strongly for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk persons.

128 ance measures included breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in eligible patients; hemogl

129 mpliance with fecal occult blood testing and colorectal cancer screening in general.

130 Studies that evaluated colorectal cancer screening in healthy individuals and a

131 is of the Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED) clu

132 ere is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden,

133 lyses of mammography, Papanicolaou test, and colorectal cancer screening in the contiguous US from 19

134 olonoscopy was a cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening in the general population, a

135 CT colonography as the major imaging test in colorectal cancer screening in the United States, with M

136 ations for universal screening, adherence to colorectal cancer screening in the US is approximately 6

137 Greater emphasis on colorectal cancer screening in these populations may be

138 al testing (FIT) are accepted strategies for colorectal-cancer screening in the average-risk populati

139 ws the current status and future outlook for colorectal cancer screening, including a discussion of r

140 er screening increased in 8 of 48 states and colorectal cancer screening increased in 13 of 49 states

141 n the event of a prolonged period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunoche

142 With an abbreviated period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunoche

143 ompare the cost-effectiveness of two 35-year colorectal cancer screening interventions among Asians,

144 erature concerning the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening is also summarized.

145 Colorectal cancer screening is cost effective, irrespect

146 Colorectal cancer screening is effective and cost-effect

147 Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening is endoscopist dependent, an

148 Colorectal cancer screening is now recommended at age 45

149 However, colorectal cancer screening is still generally underutil

150 Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is suboptimal.

151 Colorectal cancer screening is the most underused cancer

152 Colorectal cancer screening is thought to be an effectiv

153 Colorectal cancer screening is underused, and primary ca

154 Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly i

155 Colorectal cancer screening is widely recommended but un

156 he proportion of available capacity used for colorectal cancer screening, it could take up to 10 year

157 Liquid biopsy tests for colorectal cancer screening may become cost-effective if

158 s with limited life expectancy, the risks of colorectal cancer screening may outweigh the benefits.

159 Colorectal cancer screening might be less effective in b

160 to assess the fecal immunochemical test as a colorectal cancer screening modality in average-risk ind

161 Noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer screening must include sensitive detec

162 ociated with lower odds of being adherent to colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95%

163 phase 3 study of 1205 patients scheduled for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopie

164 preferences against screening, the risks of colorectal cancer screening outweigh the benefits, and t

165 ollow-up colonoscopy (FU-CY) to complete the colorectal cancer screening paradigm.

166 Data of Dutch colorectal cancer screening participants who underwent b

167 In more than half of the colorectal cancer screening participants with a positive

168 We examined colorectal cancer screening participation and compliance

169 ID-19 pandemic was associated with increased colorectal cancer screening participation and more color

170 , increasing fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COV

171 (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of colorectal cancer screening participation within 90 days

172 Patients aged 18-70 years referred for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diag

173 In an average-risk colorectal cancer screening population, a blood-based te

174 he US population estimated to have completed colorectal cancer screening pre-COVID-19 according the A

175 for 2 subcohorts of the PRECISE (Optimizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Precision and Outcomes in Co

176 Patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening prefer CT colonography to bo

177 Colorectal cancer screening prevalence remained unchange

178 was developed to improve the performance of colorectal cancer screening, primarily with regard to sp

179 a screening colonoscopy within the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Poland, from Janu

180 bation at 132 centers in the Polish National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, from 2000 through 2

181 included in the first round of the Barcelona colorectal cancer screening program, from December 2009

182 France (age, 50-74 y) who participated in a colorectal cancer screening program, from June 2009 thro

183 went screening colonoscopy within a National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, we associated incre

184 Using data from the Polish National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, we developed a risk

185 Participation in the Danish FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programme and subsequent com

186 Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies

187 A national colorectal cancer screening programme started in England

188 oscopy is feasible within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme, is safe, and has

189 Colorectal cancer screening programmes and uptake vary s

190 Worldwide, most colorectal cancer screening programmes were paused at th

191 Colorectal cancer screening programs beginning at age 50

192 rs regarding direct economic implications of colorectal cancer screening programs.

193 was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention.

194 echanical CT analysis of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening provides a comprehensive ost

195 ncer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans.

196 erly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center

197 Colorectal cancer screening rates increased by 1.3 perce

198 ly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase i

199 Patients' breast and colorectal cancer screening rates within 1 year of a PCP

200 al feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates.

201 are provider-directed intervention increased colorectal cancer screening rates.

202 Medical records were reviewed for colorectal cancer screening recommendations and completi

203 ces Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2016 colorectal cancer screening recommendations.

204 y and salpingo-oophorectomy and adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations.

205 Colorectal cancer screening reduces death from colorecta

206 olorectal cancer screening, yet the rates of colorectal cancer screening remain low.

207 colonography in an average-risk asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening sample with external validat

208 iation oncologists who traditionally provide colorectal cancer screening services and treatment.

209 ing participation of deprived individuals in colorectal cancer screening should be directed at all st

210 screening, and 0.86 (95% CrI, 0.85-0.88) for colorectal cancer screening, showing slightly attenuated

211 Colorectal cancer screening strategies included no scree

212 ished estimates of cost and effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies, and the directio

213 was developed to compare no screening and 5 colorectal cancer screening strategies: colonoscopy, liq

214 detected advanced neoplasms (AN) in a single colorectal cancer screening study.

215 dies have served to advance our knowledge of colorectal cancer screening substantially.

216 ies to improve uptake and informed choice in colorectal cancer screening such as co-producing informa

217 vance has numerous potential applications in colorectal cancer screening such as improved polyp detec

218 equate comparison can be made to established colorectal cancer screening techniques.

219 Colonoscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States.

220 CE STATEMENT 2: Clinicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient on the

221 tant for implementing any operator-dependent colorectal cancer screening test.

222 We examined colorectal cancer screening tests according to quartiles

223 To discuss new colorectal cancer screening tests and highlight controve

224 Eligible studies reported performance of colorectal cancer screening tests or health outcomes in

225 fecal DNA testing, compared with other fecal colorectal cancer screening tests, is the cost.

226 The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests.

227 e expectancies may receive less benefit from colorectal cancer screening than younger, healthier pati

228 en validated as an effective tool for use in colorectal cancer screening that is increasingly being d

229 ncer prevention services ranged from 51% for colorectal cancer screening to 88% for cervical cancer s

230 estimate of the national capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to all eligible persons in t

231 hould be examined in other ongoing trials of colorectal cancer screening to help clarify if different

232 ting for celiac disease, and age-appropriate colorectal cancer screening) to exclude organic diseases

233 stematic review of the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, to illustrate key methodolo

234 nt adults who underwent multidetector CT for colorectal cancer screening (unenhanced) or renal donor

235 Colorectal cancer screening using conventional colonosco

236 Colorectal cancer screening using FOBT followed by colon

237 Colorectal cancer screening via 1 of 4 strategies: (1) f

238 qualitative fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening was done in asymptomatic, av

239 cer screening in 27 states, while up-to-date colorectal cancer screening was more common in only 1 st

240 Colorectal cancer screening was recommended for 76.0% of

241 Applying these objectives to colorectal cancer screening, we advocate the use of immu

242 Focusing on colorectal cancer screening, we use a case study at 1 VA

243 ients at higher-than-average risk undergoing colorectal cancer screening were consecutively recruited

244 FU-CY rates after a positive SBT result for colorectal cancer screening were low among an average-ri

245 y found that low-value breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings were rare in the Veterans H

246 ears and older, who had not undergone recent colorectal cancer screening, were surveyed about their k

247 to change their use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening when tests were fully covere

248 ide a high-throughput method for noninvasive colorectal cancer screening when used in conjunction wit

249 Advancing age was inversely associated with colorectal cancer screening, whereas comorbidity was a w

250 hysicians to increase their participation in colorectal cancer screening, which could, in turn, motiv

251 ssioned a study on the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, which revealed that screeni

252 d a case-control study in 822 men undergoing colorectal cancer screening who were recruited to also u

253 of advanced histology in patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening whose largest polyp is 9 mm

254 Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening will be maximized by selecti

255 tients aged 50 through 70 years eligible for colorectal cancer screening with a positive FIT result w

256 Outcomes of colon surveillance after colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy are uncerta

257 lines do not include an upper age cutoff for colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy.

258 olled asymptomatic adults undergoing routine colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography at two

259 m consecutive patients who underwent routine colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography from 20

260 Colorectal cancer screening with diagnostic imaging can

261 Colorectal cancer screening with qualitative fecal immun

262 The findings support colorectal cancer screening with the following: colonosc

263 ts (10.1% of those visiting a PCP) underwent colorectal cancer screening within 1 year of the visit.

264 For colorectal cancer screening, women who had (1) a stool t

265 testing is the most commonly used method for colorectal cancer screening worldwide.

266 ecommended by professional organizations for colorectal cancer screening, yet the rates of colorectal