Dataset Information

Risk Stratification System for Oral Cancer Screening.

ABSTRACT: Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer (oral cancer) is a deadly disease that is increasing in incidence. Worldwide 5-year survival is only 50% due to delayed intervention with more than half of the diagnoses at stage III and IV, whereas earlier detection (stage I and II) yields survival rates up to 80% to 90%. Salivary soluble CD44 (CD44), a tumor-initiating marker, and total protein levels may facilitate oral cancer risk assessment and early intervention. This study used a hospital-based design with 150 cases and 150 frequency-matched controls to determine whether CD44 and total protein levels in oral rinses were associated with oral cancer independent of age, gender, race, ethnicity, tobacco and alcohol use, and socioeconomic status (SES). High-risk subjects receiving oral cancer prevention interventions as part of a community-based program (n = 150) were followed over 1 year to determine marker specificity and variation. CD44 ?5.33 ng/mL was highly associated with case status [adjusted OR 14.489; 95% confidence interval (CI), 5.973-35.145; P < .0001, vs. reference group CD44 <2.22 ng/mL and protein <1.23 mg/mL]. Total protein aided prediction above CD44 alone. Sensitivity and specificity in the frequency-matched study was 80% and 48.7%, respectively. However, controls were not representative of the target screening population due, in part, to a high rate of prior cancer. In contrast, specificity in the high-risk community was 74% and reached 95% after annual retesting. Simple and inexpensive salivary CD44 and total protein measurements may help identify individuals at heightened risk for oral cancer from the millions who partake in risky behaviors. Cancer Prev Res; 9(6); 445-55. ©2016 AACR.

SUBMITTER: Pereira LH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5086457 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk Stratification System for Oral Cancer Screening.

Pereira Lutécia H Mateus LH Reis Isildinha M IM Reategui Erika P EP Gordon Claudia C Saint-Victor Sandra S Duncan Robert R Gomez Carmen C Bayers Stephanie S Fisher Penelope P Perez Aymee A Goodwin W Jarrard WJ Hu Jennifer J JJ Franzmann Elizabeth J EJ

Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) 20160328 6

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer (oral cancer) is a deadly disease that is increasing in incidence. Worldwide 5-year survival is only 50% due to delayed intervention with more than half of the diagnoses at stage III and IV, whereas earlier detection (stage I and II) yields survival rates up to 80% to 90%. Salivary soluble CD44 (CD44), a tumor-initiating marker, and total protein levels may facilitate oral cancer risk assessment and early intervention. This study used a hospital-based design ...[more]

PMID: 27020654

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own.PurposeTo determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option.DesignRandomized controlled trial.Setting/participantsAsymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting.InterventionPatients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n= 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n= 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014.OutcomesThe primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction.ResultsAlthough providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%,P= 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%,P= 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates.LimitationsSingle-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making.ConclusionsProviders perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.

Project description:BackgroundOrgan/space surgical site infection (organ/space SSI) is a serious postoperative complication, closely related to a poor prognosis. Few studies have attempted to stratify the risk of organ/space SSI for patients with advanced digestive system cancer. This study aimed to identify a simple risk stratification for these patients based on perioperative factors.MethodsThe study was based on two randomized controlled trials (RCT) (NCT02715076, ChiCTR-IPR-17011099), including 839 patients undergoing elective radical resection of advanced digestive system cancer. The primary outcome was organ/space SSI within 30 days after surgery. Multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors. The risk of organ/space SSI stratified over those risk factors was compared using chi-square tests and the relative risk (RR) was estimated.ResultsAmong the 839 patients, 51 developed organ/space SSI (6.1%) within 30 days after surgery. According to the multivariable logistic regression model, 3 procedure types, including gastrectomy (OR=8.22, 95% CI: 2.71-24.87, P<0.001), colorectal resection (OR=8.65, 95% CI: 3.13-23.85, P<0.001) and pancreatoduodenectomy (OR=7.72, 95% CI: 2.95-20.21, P<0.001), as well as anaesthesia time > 4 h (OR=2.38, 95% CI: 1.08-5.27, P=0.032) and prolonged ICU stay (OR=4.10, 95% CI: 1.67-10.10, P=0.002), were risk factors for postoperative organ/space SSI. The number of risk factors was significantly associated with an increased risk of organ/space SSI (P<0.001), which was 2.8% in patients with 0-1 risk factor (RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.35), 13.0% in patients with 2 risk factors (RR=3.64, 95% CI: 2.14-6.20) and 35.7% in patients with 3 risk factors (RR=6.41, 95% CI: 3.01-13.65).ConclusionThis study is a preliminary exploratory and provides a simple risk stratification to identify the risk of postoperative organ/space SSI for patients with advanced digestive system cancer. Further research is needed to validate and generalize the results in a wider population.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02715076; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry [https://www.chictr.org.cn/enindex.aspx], identifier ChiCTR-IPR-17011099.

Project description:BackgroundIt is crucial to determine feasibility of risk-stratified screening to facilitate successful implementation. We introduced risk-stratification (BC-Predict) into the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) at three screening sites in north-west England from 2019 to 2021. The present study investigated the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on acceptability, barriers, and facilitators of the BC-Predict intervention and on the wider implementation of risk-based screening after BC-Predict was implemented in their screening site.MethodsFourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs working across the breast screening pathway at three NHSBSP sites that implemented BC-Predict. Thematic analysis interpreted the data.ResultsThree pre-decided themes were produced. (1) Acceptability of risk-based screening: risk-stratification was perceived as a beneficial step for both services and women. HCPs across the pathway reported low burden of running the BC-Predict trial on routine tasks, but with some residual concerns; (2) Barriers to implementation: comprised capacity constraints of services including the inadequacy of current IT systems to manage women with different risk profiles and, (3) Facilitators to implementation: included the continuation of stakeholder consultation across the pathway to inform implementation and need for dedicated risk screening admin staff, a push for mammography staff recruitment and guidance for screening services. Telephone helplines, integrating primary care, and supporting access for all language needs was emphasised.ConclusionRisk-stratified breast screening was viewed as a progressive step providing it does not worsen inequalities for women. Implementation of risk-stratified breast screening requires staff to be reassured that there will be systems in place to support implementation and that it will not further burden their workload. Next steps require a comprehensive assessment of the resource needed for risk-stratification versus current resource availability, upgrades to screening IT and building screening infrastructure. The role of primary care needs to be determined. Simplification and clarification of risk-based screening pathways is needed to support HCPs agency and facilitate implementation. Forthcoming evidence from ongoing randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer risk-stratification will also determine implementation.

Dataset Information

Risk Stratification System for Oral Cancer Screening.

Publications

Risk Stratification System for Oral Cancer Screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets