IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i22p14647-d966553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Farber

    (Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia)

  • Nehmat Houssami

    (Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia
    The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney 2006, Australia)

  • Isabelle Barnes

    (Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia
    Centre for Women’s Health Research, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia
    Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia)

  • Kevin McGeechan

    (Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia)

  • Alexandra Barratt

    (Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia)

  • Katy J. L. Bell

    (Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia)

Abstract

This framework focuses on the importance of the consideration of the downstream intermediate and long-term health outcomes when a change to a screening program is introduced. The authors present a methodology for utilising the relationship between screen-detected and interval cancer rates to infer the benefits and harms associated with a change to the program. A review of the previous use of these measures in the literature is presented. The framework presents other aspects to consider when utilizing this methodology, and builds upon an existing framework that helps researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to consider the impacts of changes to screening programs on health outcomes. It is hoped that this research will inform future evaluative studies to assess the benefits and harms of changes to screening programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Farber & Nehmat Houssami & Isabelle Barnes & Kevin McGeechan & Alexandra Barratt & Katy J. L. Bell, 2022. "Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:14647-:d:966553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/14647/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/14647/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kui Son Choi & Jae Kwan Jun & Eun-Cheol Park & Sohee Park & Kyu Won Jung & Mi Ah Han & Il Ju Choi & Hoo-Yeon Lee, 2012. "Performance of Different Gastric Cancer Screening Methods in Korea: A Population-Based Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    2. Patrick M. M. Bossuyt & Kirsten McCaffery, 2009. "Additional Patient Outcomes and Pathways in Evaluations of Testing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(5), pages 30-38, September.
    3. Tron Anders Moger & Åsne Holen & Berit Hanestad & Solveig Hofvind, 2022. "Costs and Effects of Implementing Digital Tomosynthesis in a Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening Program: Predictions Using Results from the To-Be Trial in Norway," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 495-507, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clara Benedetta Conti & Stefano Agnesi & Miki Scaravaglio & Pietro Masseria & Marco Emilio Dinelli & Massimo Oldani & Fabio Uggeri, 2023. "Early Gastric Cancer: Update on Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Chisato Hamashima & Michiko Shabana & Mikizo Okamoto & Yoneatsu Osaki & Takuji Kishimoto, 2015. "Survival Analysis of Patients with Interval Cancer Undergoing Gastric Cancer Screening by Endoscopy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Ming-ming He & Wen-jing Wu & Feng Wang & Zhi-qiang Wang & Dong-sheng Zhang & Hui-yan Luo & Miao-zhen Qiu & Feng-hua Wang & Chao Ren & Zhao-lei Zeng & Rui-hua Xu, 2013. "S-1-Based Chemotherapy versus Capecitabine-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    4. Jung, Minsoo, 2015. "National Cancer Screening Programs and Evidence-Based Healthcare Policy in South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 26-32.
    5. Michelle M.A. Kip & Maarten J. IJzerman & Martin Henriksson & Tracy Merlin & Milton C. Weinstein & Charles E. Phelps & Ron Kusters & Hendrik Koffijberg, 2018. "Toward Alignment in the Reporting of Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests and Biomarkers: The AGREEDT Checklist," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 778-788, October.
    6. Mark Helfand, 2009. "Web Exclusive White Paper Series on Diagnostic Test Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(5), pages 634-635, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:14647-:d:966553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.