Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium

CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 199-216

  Doubeni, Chyke A ^a   Gabler, Nicole B ^a   Wheeler, Cosette M ^b   McCarthy, Anne Marie ^c   Castle, Philip E ^d   Halm, Ethan A ^e   Schnall, Mitchell D ^f   Skinner, Celette S ^g   Tosteson, Anna N A ^h   Weaver, Donald L ⁱ   Vachani, Anil ^a   Mehta, Shivan J ^j   Rendle, Katharine A ^a   Fedewa, Stacey A ^k   Corley, Douglas A ^l,m   Armstrong, Katrina ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^k AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY   (United States)

^l DIVISION OF RESEARCH   (United States)

^m KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

breast; cervix uteri; colon; early detection of cancer; early diagnosis; lung; mass screening; neoplasm

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BRONCHOSCOPY GUIDED BIOPSY; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COLPOSCOPY; COLPOSCOPY DIRECTED BIOPSY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY GUIDED BIOPSY; CYTOLOGY; ENDOBRONCHIAL ULTRASOUND GUIDED NEEDLE ASPIRATION; FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION BIOPSY; FLEXIBLE BRONCHOSCOPY; FLEXIBLE SIGMOIDOSCOPY; FOLLOW UP; GUAIAC BASED FECAL OCCULT BLOOD TEST; HUMAN; LUNG BIOPSY; LUNG CANCER; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDIASTINOSCOPY; NAVIGATIONAL BRONCHOSCOPY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; OCCULT BLOOD TEST; OPEN BIOPSY; OPTICAL COLONOSCOPY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; SPUTUM ANALYSIS; SPUTUM CYTODIAGNOSIS; STEREOTACTIC GUIDED CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THORACOCENTESIS; THORACOSCOPIC PLEURAL BIOPSY; TRANSBRONCHIAL ASPIRATION; TRANSTHORACIC ASPIRATION; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DELAYED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; NEOPLASM; PATIENT CARE; TIME TO TREATMENT;

BIOPSY; CONTINUITY OF PATIENT CARE; DELAYED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; TIME-TO-TREATMENT;

EID: 85044660432     PISSN: 00079235     EISSN: 15424863     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3322/caac.21452     Document Type: Review

References (137)

1. Kaplan GS. Health care scheduling and access: a report from the IOM. JAMA. 2015;314:1449-1450.
2. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001.
3. Institute of Medicine. Transforming Health Care Scheduling and Access: Getting to Now. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.
4. US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315:2564-2575.
5. Moyer VA, US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:880-891, W312.
6. Moyer VA, US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:330-338.
7. Sui AL, US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:279-296.
8. Koh HK, Sebelius KG. Promoting prevention through the Affordable Care Act. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1296-1299.
9. Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K, Treadwell JR, Launders J, Schoelles K. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:238-246.
10. D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, et al. American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
11. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:130-160.
12. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395-409.
13. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314:1599-1614.
14. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:342-362.
15. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:147-172.
16. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:100-121.
17. Wender R, Fontham ET, Barrera E Jr, et al. American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:107-117.
18. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ; ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287:2120-2129.
19. Chubak J, Garcia MP, Burnett-Hartman AN, et al. Time to colonoscopy after positive fecal blood test in four US health care systems. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25:344-350.
20. Eggleston KS, Coker AL, Luchok KJ, Meyer TE. Adherence to recommendations for follow-up to abnormal Pap tests. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1332-1341.
21. Laiyemo AO, Doubeni C, Pinsky PF, et al. Race and colorectal cancer disparities: health-care utilization vs different cancer susceptibilities. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:538-546.
22. McCarthy AM, Kim JJ, Beaber EF, et al. Follow-up of abnormal breast and colorectal cancer screening by race/ethnicity. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51:507-512.
23. Yabroff KR, Washington KS, Leader A, Neilson E, Mandelblatt J. Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results. Med Care Res Rev. 2003;60:294-331.
24. Michor F, Iwasa Y, Nowak MA. Dynamics of cancer progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:197-205.
25. Neal RD, Tharmanathan P, France B, et al. Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(suppl 1):S92-107.
26. Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:256-267.
27. Vesco KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, et al. Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 86. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Pub. No. 11-05156-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.
28. Bynum SA, Davis JL, Green BL, Katz RV. Unwillingness to participate in colorectal cancer screening: examining fears, attitudes, and medical mistrust in an ethnically diverse sample of adults 50 years and older. Am J Health Promot. 2012;26:295-300.
29. Green AR, Peters-Lewis A, Percac-Lima S, et al. Barriers to screening colonoscopy for low-income Latino and white patients in an urban community health center. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:834-840.
30. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315:2576-2594.
31. Humphrey L, Deffebach M, Pappas M, et al. Screening for Lung Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Evidence Synthesis No. 105. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Pub. No. 13-05188-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
32. Khakbazan Z, Taghipour A, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Mohammadi E. Help seeking behavior of women with self-discovered breast cancer symptoms: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of patient delay [serial online]. PLoS One. 2014;9:e110262.
33. Racz JM, Holloway CM, Huang W, Hong NJ. Improving patient flow and timeliness in the diagnosis and management of breast abnormalities: the impact of a rapid diagnostic unit. Curr Oncol. 2016;23:e260-e265.
34. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Population-based Research Optimizing Screening Through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2018. healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/prospr/. Accessed January 3, 2018.
35. Beaber EF, Kim JJ, Schapira MM, et al. Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR Consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening [serial online]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv120.
36. American Cancer Society. Chronological History of ACS Recommendations on Early Detection of Cancer. Atlanta; GA: American Cancer Society; 2004.
37. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924-926.
38. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions [serial online]. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
39. Kyriacou DN, Lewis RJ. Confounding by indication in clinical research. JAMA. 2016;316:1818-1819.
40. Freemantle N, Marston L, Walters K, Wood J, Reynolds MR, Petersen I. Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research [serial online]. BMJ. 2013;347:f6409.
41. Wang M, He X, Chang Y, Sun G, Thabane L. A sensitivity and specificity comparison of fine needle aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in evaluation of suspicious breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2017;31:157-166.
42. Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions: An Update to the 2009 Report. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 139. (Prepared by the Brown Evidence-Based Practice Center under Contract 290-2012-00012-I.) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Pub. No. 14-EHC040-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.
43. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. 2012 Updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17(5 suppl 1):S1-S27.
44. Wentzensen N, Walker JL, Gold MA, et al. Multiple biopsies and detection of cervical cancer precursors at colposcopy. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:83-89.
45. Huh WK, Ault KA, Chelmow D, et al. Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2015;19:91-96.
46. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315:2595-2609.
47. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2001;285:914-924.
48. Rivera MP, Mehta AC, Wahidi MM. Establishing the diagnosis of lung cancer: Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(5 suppl):e142S-e165S.
49. Olivotto IA, Gomi A, Bancej C, et al. Influence of delay to diagnosis on prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94:2143-2150.
50. Ganry O, Peng J, Dubreuil A. Influence of abnormal screens on delays and prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma. J Med Screen. 2004;11:28-31.
51. Rutter CM, Kim JJ, Meester RGS, et al. Effect of time to diagnostic testing for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening abnormalities on screening efficacy: a modeling study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27:158-164.
52. National Quality Measures for Breast Centers, National Consortuium of Breast Centers Inc. nqmbc.org/become-a-certified-quality-breast-center/. Accessed October 24, 2017.
53. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) Monthly Newsletter. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009.
54. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Quinn VP, et al. Association between time to colonoscopy after a positive fecal test result and risk of colorectal cancer and cancer stage at diagnosis. JAMA. 2017;317:1631-1641.
55. Meester RG, Zauber AG, Doubeni CA, et al. Consequences of increasing time to colonoscopy examination after positive result from fecal colorectal cancer screening test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:1445-1451, e1448.
56. Paterson WG, Depew WT, Pare P, et al. Canadian consensus on medically acceptable wait times for digestive health care. Can J Gastroenterol. 2006;20:411-423.
57. Peterson K, Carson S, Humphrey L, Helfand M. Patients with Positive Screening Fecal Occult Blood Tests: Evidence Brief on the Relationship Between Time Delay to Colonoscopy and Colorectal Cancer Outcomes. VA-ESP Project 09-199. Portland, OR: Evidence-Based Synthesis Program (ESP), Coordinating Center, Portland VA Medical Center; 2013.
58. Sonavane SK, Pinsky P, Watts J Jr, et al. The relationship of cancer characteristics and patient outcome with time to lung cancer diagnosis after an abnormal screening CT. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:5113-5118.
59. Byrne SC, Barrett B, Bhatia R. The impact of diagnostic imaging wait times on the prognosis of lung cancer. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2015;66:53-57.
60. Kanashiki M, Satoh H, Ishikawa H, Yamashita YT, Ohtsuka M, Sekizawa K. Time from finding abnormality on mass-screening to final diagnosis of lung cancer. Oncol Rep. 2003;10:649-652.
61. Yorio JT, Xie Y, Yan J, Gerber DE. Lung cancer diagnostic and treatment intervals in the United States: a health care disparity? J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:1322-1330.
62. Asch S, Kerr E, Hamilton E, et al. Lung cancer. In: Asch S, Kerr E, Hamilton E, et al, eds. Quality of Care for Oncologic Conditions and HIV: A Review of the Literature and Quality Indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2000:133-171.
63. Baldwin DR, White B, Schmidt-Hansen M, Champion AR, Melder AM; Guideline Development Group. Diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance [serial online]. BMJ. 2011;342:d2110.
64. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7-30.
65. Expert Panel on Breast Imaging, Mainiero MB, Moy L, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 14(11S):S383-S390, 2017.
66. American College of Surgeons. National Accreditation Program For Breast Centers Standards Manual: 2018 Edition. 2017. accreditation.facs.org/accreditationdocuments/NAPBC/Portal%20Resources/2018NAPBCStandardsManual.pdf. Accessed October 24, 2017.
67. Richards MA, Westcombe AM, Love SB, Littlejohns P, Ramirez AJ. Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet. 1999;353:1119-1126.
68. Caplan L. Delay in breast cancer: implications for stage at diagnosis and survival [serial online]. Front Public Health. 2014;2:87.
69. Durham DD, Robinson WR, Lee SS, et al. Insurance-based differences in time to diagnostic follow-up after positive screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25:1474-1482.
70. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP Jr, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:653-657.
71. Castle PE, Fetterman B, Akhtar I, et al. Age-appropriate use of human papillomavirus vaccines in the United States. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114:365-369.
72. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R, ALTS Study Group. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:293-299.
73. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA. 1999;281:1605-1610.
74. Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Schiffman MH. Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. The 1992 National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA. 1994;271:1866-1869.
75. Castle PE, Sideri M, Jeronimo J, Solomon D, Schiffman M. Risk assessment to guide the prevention of cervical cancer. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2008;12:1-7.
76. Schiffman M, Wentzensen N, Khan MJ, et al. Preparing for the next round of ASCCP-sponsored cervical screening and management guidelines. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21:87-90.
77. Jeronimo J, Schiffman M. Colposcopy at a crossroads. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:349-353.
78. Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, et al. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:264-272.
79. Massad LS, Jeronimo J, Schiffman M, National Institutes of Health/American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (NIH/ASCCP) Research Group. Interobserver agreement in the assessment of components of colposcopic grading. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1279-1284.
80. Wentzensen N, Massad LS, Mayeaux EJ, Jr, et al. Evidence-based consensus recommendations for colposcopy practice for cervical cancer prevention in the United States. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21:216-222.
81. Wentzensen N, Schiffman M, Silver MI, et al. ASCCP colposcopy standards: risk-based colposcopy practice. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21:230-234.
82. Khan MJ, Werner CL, Darragh TM, et al. ASCCP colposcopy standards: role of colposcopy, benefits, potential harms, and terminology for colposcopic practice. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21:223-229.
83. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Solomon D. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:18-25.
84. Trimble CL, Piantadosi S, Gravitt P, et al. Spontaneous regression of high-grade cervical dysplasia: effects of human papillomavirus type and HLA phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:4717-4723.
85. Castanon A, Landy R, Brocklehurst P, et al. Risk of preterm delivery with increasing depth of excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: nested case-control study [serial online]. BMJ. 2014;349:g6223.
86. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;367:489-498.
87. Sasieni P, Castanon A, Landy R, et al. Risk of preterm birth following surgical treatment for cervical disease: executive summary of a recent symposium. BJOG. 2016;123:1426-1429.
88. Mayeaux EJ Jr, Novetsky AP, Chelmow D, et al. Systematic review of international colposcopy quality improvement guidelines. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21:249-257.
89. Ryerson AB, Bernard VB, Majors A. National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: Summarizing the First 12 Years of Partnerships and Progress Against Breast and Cervical Cancer. cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/pdf/national_report.pdf. 2017. Accessed January 3, 2018.
90. Eggleston KS, Coker AL, Das IP, Cordray ST, Luchok KJ. Understanding barriers for adherence to follow-up care for abnormal pap tests. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16:311-330.
91. Tabnak F, Muller HG, Wang JL, Zhang W, Howell LP. Timeliness and follow-up patterns of cervical cancer detection in a cohort of medically underserved California women. Cancer Causes Control. 2010;21:411-420.
92. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:791-794.
93. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Pan-Canadian Cervical Screening Network. Cervical Cancer Screening in Canada: Setting Targets for Program Performance. Summary Report: 2013. Toronto, ON: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; 2013.
94. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Cervical Cancer Screening in Canada: Monitoring and Evaluation of Quality Indicators. Results Report: January 2011-December 2013. Toronto, ON: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; updated July 2016.
95. International Agency for Research on Cancer, CPO Piemonte and University Hospital "Citta della Salute e della Scienza Turin, Mass Screening Registry/Finnish Cancer Registry. Cancer Screening in the European Union: Report on the Implementation of the Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2017.
96. Mayeaux EJ Jr, Novetsky AP, Chelmow D, et al. ASCCP colposcopy standards: colposcopy quality improvement recommendations for the United States. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21:242-248.
97. Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut. 2018;67:291-298.
98. Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Parkin DM, et al. Long term effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening after 17 years of follow-up: the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389:1299-1311.
99. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:1541-1549.
100. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298-1306.
101. Fedewa SA, Flanders WD, Ward KC, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in interval colorectal cancer incidence: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:857-866.
102. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Mariotto AB, et al. Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:849-857, W152.
103. Gellad ZF, Almirall D, Provenzale D, Fisher DA. Time from positive screening fecal occult blood test to colonoscopy and risk of neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54:2497-2502.
104. Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Levin TR. Time to diagnostic testing after a positive colorectal cancer screening test [letter]. JAMA. 2017;318:483.
105. Wattacheril J, Kramer JR, Richardson P, et al. Lagtimes in diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer: determinants and association with cancer stage and survival. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28:1166-1174.
106. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2018. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2018.
107. American Academy of Family Physicians. Clinical Preventive Service Recommendation: Lung Cancer. Patient Care. Leawood, KS: American Academy of Family Physicians; 2014. aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all/lung-cancer.html. Accessed December 3, 2017.
108. Roetzheim RG, Gonzalez EC, Ferrante JM, Pal N, Van Durme DJ, Krischer JP. Effects of health insurance and race on breast carcinoma treatments and outcomes. Cancer. 2000;89:2202-2213.
109. American College of Radiology. Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2014. acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADS. Accessed January 8, 2017.
110. Belanger AR, Akulian JA. An update on the role of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy in the evaluation and staging of lung cancer. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2017;11:211-221.
111. Benamore RE, Scott K, Richards CJ, Entwisle JJ. Image-guided pleural biopsy: diagnostic yield and complications. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:700-705.
112. Jacobsen MM, Silverstein SC, Quinn M, et al. Timeliness of access to lung cancer diagnosis and treatment: a scoping literature review. Lung Cancer. 2017;112:156-164.
113. Ost DE, Jim Yeung SC, Tanoue LT, Gould MK. Clinical and organizational factors in the initial evaluation of patients with lung cancer: Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(5 suppl):e121S-e141S.
114. Kashiwabara K, Koshi S, Itonaga K, Nakahara O, Tanaka M, Toyonaga M. Outcome in patients with lung cancer found on lung cancer mass screening roentgenograms, but who did not subsequently consult a doctor. Lung Cancer. 2003;40:67-72.
115. O'Rourke N, Edwards R. Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2000;12:141-144.
116. Ost DE, Gould MK. Decision making in patients with pulmonary nodules. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;185:363-372.
117. Myrdal G, Lambe M, Hillerdal G, Lamberg K, Agustsson T, Stahle E. Effect of delays on prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax. 2004;59:45-49.
118. Annakkaya AN, Arbak P, Balbay O, Bilgin C, Erbas M, Bulut I. Effect of symptom-to-treatment interval on prognosis in lung cancer. Tumori. 2007;93:61-67.
119. Comber H, Cronin DP, Deady S, Lorcain PO, Riordan P. Delays in treatment in the cancer services: impact on cancer stage and survival. Ir Med J. 2005;98:238-239.
120. Haas J, Kaplan C, McMillan A, Esserman LJ. Does timely assessment affect the anxiety associated with an abnormal mammogram result? J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2001;10:599-605.
121. Keyzer-Dekker CM, van Esch L, de Vries J, et al. An abnormal screening mammogram causes more anxiety than a palpable lump in benign breast disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134:253-258.
122. Kaufman CS, Shockney L, Rabinowitz B, et al. National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC): a robust quality tool: breast center quality measures. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:377-385.
123. Richardson LC, Royalty J, Howe W, Helsel W, Kammerer W, Benard VB. Timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1996-2005. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:1769-1776.
124. Tejeda S, Darnell JS, Cho YI, Stolley MR, Markossian TW, Calhoun EA. Patient barriers to follow-up care for breast and cervical cancer abnormalities. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013;22:507-517.
125. Yabroff KR, Breen N, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, Freedman AN, Ballard-Barbash R. What factors are associated with diagnostic follow-up after abnormal mammograms? Findings from a US National Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:723-732.
126. Rojas C, Zhou MK, Khamis HJ, Amesse L. Analysis of patterns of patient compliance after an abnormal Pap smear result: the influence of demographic characteristics on patient compliance. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17:298-302.
127. Perez-Stable EJ, Afable-Munsuz A, Kaplan CP, et al. Factors influencing time to diagnosis after abnormal mammography in diverse women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013;22:159-166.
128. Carter-Harris L. Lung cancer stigma as a barrier to medical help-seeking behavior: practice implications. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2015;27:240-245.
129. Carter-Harris L, Hermann CP, Schreiber J, Weaver MT, Rawl SM. Lung cancer stigma predicts timing of medical help-seeking behavior. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014;41:E203-E210.
130. Dunn J, Garvey G, Valery PC, et al. Barriers to lung cancer care: health professionals' perspectives. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25:497-504.
131. Chiarelli AM, Muradali D, Blackmore KM, et al. Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs usual care. Br J Cancer. 2017;116:1254-1263.
132. Plotogea A, Chiarelli AM, Mirea L, et al. Clinical and prognostic factors associated with diagnostic wait times by breast cancer detection method [serial online]. Springerplus. 2014;3:125.
133. Baron RC, Melillo S, Rimer BK, et al. Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38:110-117.
134. Selby K, Baumgartner C, Levin TR, et al. Interventions to improve follow-up of positive results on fecal blood tests: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:565-575.
135. Battaglia TA, Bak SM, Heeren T, et al. Boston Patient Navigation Research Program: the impact of navigation on time to diagnostic resolution after abnormal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1645-1654.
136. Markossian TW, Darnell JS, Calhoun EA. Follow-up and timeliness after an abnormal cancer screening among underserved, urban women in a patient navigation program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1691-1700.
137. Brookhart MA, Sturmer T, Glynn RJ, Rassen J, Schneeweiss S. Confounding control in healthcare database research: challenges and potential approaches. Med Care. 2010;48(6 suppl):S114-S120.