ライフサイエンスコーパス: overdiagnosis

1 rcinoma-related cancers (histology shift and overdiagnosis).

2 munologic assays for HIT results in frequent overdiagnosis.

3 l-described biases of lead time, length, and overdiagnosis.

4 extent to which the data are consistent with overdiagnosis.

5 eening studies directly examined the risk of overdiagnosis.

6 en (10 to 14 months) in an attempt to reduce overdiagnosis.

7 hat screening is associated with substantial overdiagnosis.

8 Concerns have been expressed about asthma overdiagnosis.

9 ings and compared excess incidence with true overdiagnosis.

10 MRI in women with breast cancer may lead to overdiagnosis.

11 sitive results and, possibly, an increase in overdiagnosis.

12 he importance of ductal carcinoma in situ in overdiagnosis.

13 e figures suggest at worst a small amount of overdiagnosis.

14 ng the potential harms, including those from overdiagnosis.

15 ed to optimize these and to further quantify overdiagnosis.

16 s well as possible ways to avoid unnecessary overdiagnosis.

17 troversial because of adverse events such as overdiagnosis.

18 ess incidence under screening as a proxy for overdiagnosis.

19 false-positive rates, and the potential for overdiagnosis.

20 hy screening entails a substantial amount of overdiagnosis.

21 risks for prostate cancer death (2.27%) and overdiagnosis (2.4%), but reduces total tests by 59% and

22 imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newl

23 ecome clinically apparent without screening (overdiagnosis), although there is uncertainty about this

24 Overdiagnosis, an important harm of screening, is of unc

25 ers diagnosed, while minimizing the harms of overdiagnosis and maintaining cost-effectiveness.

26 arms of treatment and indirect evidence that overdiagnosis and overtreatment are likely to be substan

27 This strategy could help to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment in patients with Barrett

28 Recent recognition of the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in s

29 Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of indolent prostate can

30 Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of Lyme disease are asso

31 The adverse consequences associated with overdiagnosis and overtreatment of Lyme disease, althoug

32 This is causing a high degree of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of otherwise clinically

33 rsial in large part because of high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of otherwise indolent tu

34 ging of prostate cancer that has resulted in overdiagnosis and overtreatment of the disease.

35 aggressive PCa is urgently needed to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment of this common disease.

36 l benefit but substantial potential risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

37 functional adverse effects, and the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

38 creasing diagnosis has led to concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

39 an also be detected by screening, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

40 hich harms to quality of life resulting from overdiagnosis and treatment counterbalance this benefit

41 diagnostic tests continues to result in both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of vulvovaginal candido

42 emains controversial due to the high rate of overdiagnosis and unnecessary prostate biopsies, despite

43 Volume-doubling time can only indicate overdiagnosis and was estimated for new cancer from 1 me

44 ursors to clinical attention, which leads to overdiagnosis and, if unrecognised, possible overtreatme

45 hat does not progress to EA over a lifetime (overdiagnosis) and missed BE that rapidly progresses to

46 false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefit

47 Harms included radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, and a high rate of false-positive finding

48 ubling of lung cancer incidence, no apparent overdiagnosis, and a more favorable stage shift.

49 missing a case of true disease, overtesting, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment have become common.

50 iety associated with false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and previous knowledge of cancer or livin

51 eening, including false-positive results and overdiagnosis, and the costs of screening can be substan

52 of harm related to false positive findings, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary invasive testing is real.

53 Although overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure may

54 First, different ways to define and measure overdiagnosis are considered.

55 There is uncertainty about the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with different screening strate

56 iomarkers have the potential to minimise the overdiagnosis associated with PSA screening.

57 The estimated rate of overdiagnosis attributable to the program was 18% to 25%

58 adherence to screening, degree of length or overdiagnosis bias in the first year of screening, quali

59 ning programs such as lead time, length, and overdiagnosis bias.

60 ributable to lead-time bias, length bias, or overdiagnosis bias.

61 proaches were used to estimate the amount of overdiagnosis: comparing the incidence of advanced and n

62 -positive mammograms, benign biopsy results, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, and ratio of false-po

63 the size of detected tumors and to estimate overdiagnosis (detection of tumors that would not become

64 These stem primarily from a backlash against overdiagnosis due to prostate specific antigen-based scr

65 underdiagnosis (due to under-reporting) and overdiagnosis (due to an overuse of the term 'allergy')

66 Overdiagnosis, especially in women, may be a substantial

67 ond, contextual features and how they affect overdiagnosis estimates are examined.

68 pressed concerns about screening-associated "overdiagnosis." Given this dilemma, the critically think

69 Concerns about breast cancer overdiagnosis have increased the need to understand how

70 in approximately 200/1000 women screened and overdiagnosis (ie, finding breast cancer that would not

71 Estimates of the frequency of overdiagnosis in breast and prostate cancer screening va

72 sed men in a screened population, represents overdiagnosis in most cases.

73 provider concentration, suggesting possible overdiagnosis in some areas and/or underdiagnosis in oth

74 in small infants and children can help avoid overdiagnosis in this group and can obviate the need for

75 agnosed in women offered screening represent overdiagnosis (incidence increase of 48.3%).

76 Results: Screening benefits and overdiagnosis increase with breast density and RR.

77 ional mortality reduction in all models, but overdiagnosis increased most substantially at older ages

78 Overdiagnosis is common with breast and prostate cancer

79 Overdiagnosis is eliminated because resection was the on

80 most misdiagnosed neurological diseases, and overdiagnosis is especially common.

81 Cancer overdiagnosis is frequently estimated using the excess i

82 The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime r

83 t cancer that will never become symptomatic (overdiagnosis), leading to overtreatment.

84 s of localized neuroblastoma in infants, the overdiagnosis observed in neuroblastoma screening studie

85 Obligate overdiagnosis occurs in 9% of DCIS and approximately 7%

86 Although some overdiagnosis occurs in mainland Europe, our data sugges

87 rostate cancer death to 2.15%, with risk for overdiagnosis of 3.3%.

88 Precise quantification of overdiagnosis of breast cancer (defined as the percentag

89 st cancer during the patient's lifetime, and overdiagnosis of breast cancer is a cause for concern.

90 aphy screening did not result in significant overdiagnosis of breast cancer.

91 ey are imprecise, potentially leading to the overdiagnosis of chronic kidney disease.

92 negligible contribution of 0.15% to obligate overdiagnosis of DCIS and a contribution of less than 0.

93 Recent studies reveal a high occurrence of overdiagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in sur

94 y harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis of indolent disease.

95 ded random systematic techniques have led to overdiagnosis of insignificant cancer and underdiagnosis

96 a screening tool has raised concerns for the overdiagnosis of low-risk and the underdiagnosis of high

97 Higher SES was associated with overdiagnosis of low-risk PC and, conversely, lower risk

98 Although overdiagnosis of Lyme disease appears to be the more fre

99 Overdiagnosis of MDR TB may result in treatment with sec

100 cence (n = 1) was present but resulted in an overdiagnosis of mucosal abnormalities when anastomoses

101 Common reasons for overdiagnosis of OCD by the lay interviewers were inappr

102 y decrease overuse of imaging procedures and overdiagnosis of PE.

103 anced lung disease and leads to considerable overdiagnosis of pulmonary hypertension.

104 Choice of an inappropriate comparison group, overdiagnosis of salpingitis in IUD users, and inability

105 py for UTI without urine culture testing and overdiagnosis of UTI were common and associated with unn

106 As a result, there is an overdiagnosis of well-known causes, such as essential tr

107 mplications for diagnosing otitis media, the overdiagnosis of which is a primary factor in increased

108 ed and mortality reduction) and harms (e.g., overdiagnosis) of risk-based screening strategies using

109 It is unclear whether this represents overdiagnosis or a true increase in incidence.

110 xist, there is little evidence of widespread overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of ADHD or of widespread o

111 nd harms resulting from screening (including overdiagnosis) or treatment of thyroid cancer.

112 Pharmaceutical marketing can lead to overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and overuse of medications

113 e morbidity; mortality; and harms, including overdiagnosis, overtreatment, diagnostic procedure-relat

114 commends that authors of studies quantifying overdiagnosis provide information about these features.

115 u (DCIS) lesions were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 24.4% [including DCIS] and 14.7% [

116 80 cases of DCIS were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 48.3% [including DCIS] and 38.6% [

117 ing at age 40 years) adds little to obligate overdiagnosis rates (0.15% for DCIS and less than 0.1% f

118 Type 1 overdiagnosis rates among screened women in the United S

119 Results Obligate overdiagnosis rates depend strongly on the age at which

120 ls are used to estimate obligate (or type 1) overdiagnosis rates for DCIS, invasive breast cancer, an

121 ncidence by age, are used to estimate type 1 overdiagnosis rates for the U.S. screening population.

122 Conclusion Type 1 overdiagnosis rates increase rapidly with age at screeni

123 ine studies using different methods reported overdiagnosis rates of 0% to 54%; rates from randomized

124 ntribution of less than 0.1% to the obligate overdiagnosis rates of invasive breast cancer and all br

125 Resulting age-dependent overdiagnosis rates, along with screen-detected breast c

126 Purpose To determine obligate overdiagnosis rates, defined as the percentage of women

127 ay be due, in part, to additional lead time, overdiagnosis related to PSA testing, grade migration, o

128 However, the extent to which overdiagnosis represents a true problem relates to the c

129 cle concludes with questions that readers of overdiagnosis studies can use to evaluate the validity a

130 This article identifies features of overdiagnosis studies that influence results and shows t

131 automatically permits unbiased estimation of overdiagnosis; sufficient follow-up and appropriate anal

132 These findings suggest that overdiagnosis-the identification, through screening, of

133 ancer death (2.23%) but reduces the risk for overdiagnosis to 2.3%.

134 r monitoring in Barrett's esophagus to avoid overdiagnosis/treatment highlights an important PCA them

135 Estimates of overdiagnosis vary from 1% to 10%.

136 The percentage of overdiagnosis was calculated by accounting for the expec

137 incidence, mortality from breast cancer, and overdiagnosis were compared using a time-dependent Cox p

138 Studies of overdiagnosis were highly heterogeneous, and estimates v

139 Estimates of overdiagnosis were no different from CBE for risk-based

140 opsy criteria has resulted in a high rate of overdiagnosis, which constitutes one major obstacle to i

141 ow-grade DCIS lesions-indicative of possible overdiagnosis-with digital breast cancer screening.

142 es of deaths from breast cancer coupled with overdiagnosis within screening programmes have prompted