FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2051205112> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2051205112 abstract "You have accessJournal of UrologyBladder Cancer: Detection and Screening1 Apr 20111233 WHOM SHOULD WE SCREEN FOR BLADDER CANCER? A DECISION ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THE PLCO Andrew Vickers, Caroline Savage, Adam Kibel, Amanda Black, Grant Izmirlian, Andrew Stephenson, and Bernard Bochner Andrew VickersAndrew Vickers New York, NY More articles by this author , Caroline SavageCaroline Savage New York, NY More articles by this author , Adam KibelAdam Kibel St. Louis, MO More articles by this author , Amanda BlackAmanda Black Rockville, MD More articles by this author , Grant IzmirlianGrant Izmirlian Rockville, MD More articles by this author , Andrew StephensonAndrew Stephenson Cleveland, OH More articles by this author , and Bernard BochnerBernard Bochner New York, NY More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.904AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Although screening holds great promise for reducing bladder cancer mortality, the low incidence of bladder cancer entails that many individuals have to be screened in order to detect one potentially aggressive cancer at an early stage. One possibility is to restrict screening to a high risk group, such as smokers. We used data from the PLCO study to compare screening strategies for early identification of aggressive bladder cancer using simple decision analytic techniques. METHODS The PLCO is a randomized trial of cancer screening at ages 55–74. While bladder cancer was not one of the diseases being evaluated, data on bladder cancer were collected. Using the PLCO training set (n=49,873), we examined screening strategies based on age, sex and smoking history. For each strategy, we calculated the percentage of the population classified as being at risk for development of aggressive tumors (defined as invasive disease - T1 or higher - or grade 3–4) and likely to benefit from screening. We then calculated the reduction in cases of aggressive disease given hypothetical risk reductions associated with screening. The trade-off between people screened and aggressive tumors avoided was calculated as a net benefit using the threshold maximum number of individuals a clinician would subject to screening in order to prevent one aggressive cancer (number needed to screen threshold: NNSt): net benefit = reduction in event rate � number screened/NNSt. RESULTS The five year probability of being diagnosed with aggressive bladder cancer was 0.24%. The optimal screening strategy was based on a risk score derived from logistic regression: 2/4points for 10+/20+ pack year smoking history; +2 for age>65; +4 for male; +1 for family history. Given reasonable assumptions about the NNSt (500 or more) and relative risk reduction (30% or more), screening patients with a risk score > 6 or >8 was superior to screening everyone or no one. For example, for 100,000 in the population using a risk score > 6 to guide screening leads to ∼23,400 people screened. If screening was associated with a 40% relative reduction in the risk of aggressive bladder cancer this would result in 57 fewer aggressive cancers. Screening all would require an extra 76,600 people screened to prevent an additional 38 cancers. For an NNSt of 1000 the net benefit is 33.5 for risk score >6, which is higher than that for screening all (−4.8), none (0) or risk score > 8 (19). CONCLUSIONS Screening for bladder cancer needs to be restricted to a sub-group at elevated risk. Different eligibility criteria for screening can be compared rationally using decision analytic techniques. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e494 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Andrew Vickers New York, NY More articles by this author Caroline Savage New York, NY More articles by this author Adam Kibel St. Louis, MO More articles by this author Amanda Black Rockville, MD More articles by this author Grant Izmirlian Rockville, MD More articles by this author Andrew Stephenson Cleveland, OH More articles by this author Bernard Bochner New York, NY More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2051205112 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2051205112 creator A5003906407 @default.
• W2051205112 creator A5008763280 @default.
• W2051205112 creator A5025886998 @default.
• W2051205112 creator A5064396212 @default.
• W2051205112 creator A5072104844 @default.
• W2051205112 creator A5077333954 @default.
• W2051205112 creator A5086957919 @default.
• W2051205112 date "2011-04-01" @default.
• W2051205112 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2051205112 title "1233 WHOM SHOULD WE SCREEN FOR BLADDER CANCER? A DECISION ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THE PLCO" @default.
• W2051205112 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.904" @default.
• W2051205112 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2051205112 type Work @default.
• W2051205112 sameAs 2051205112 @default.
• W2051205112 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2051205112 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2051205112 hasAuthorship W2051205112A5003906407 @default.
• W2051205112 hasAuthorship W2051205112A5008763280 @default.
• W2051205112 hasAuthorship W2051205112A5025886998 @default.
• W2051205112 hasAuthorship W2051205112A5064396212 @default.
• W2051205112 hasAuthorship W2051205112A5072104844 @default.
• W2051205112 hasAuthorship W2051205112A5077333954 @default.
• W2051205112 hasAuthorship W2051205112A5086957919 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C2776463041 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C2780234812 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C2780352672 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C61511704 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C120665830 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C121332964 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C121608353 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C126322002 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C143998085 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C2776463041 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C2780234812 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C2780352672 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C29456083 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C61511704 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C71924100 @default.
• W2051205112 hasConceptScore W2051205112C74909509 @default.
• W2051205112 hasIssue "4S" @default.
• W2051205112 hasLocation W20512051121 @default.
• W2051205112 hasOpenAccess W2051205112 @default.
• W2051205112 hasPrimaryLocation W20512051121 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W2051409385 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W2146878805 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W2419513607 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W2588194483 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W2919719141 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W2969049179 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W3043892729 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W4313461589 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W4327613118 @default.
• W2051205112 hasRelatedWork W2185890072 @default.
• W2051205112 hasVolume "185" @default.
• W2051205112 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2051205112 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2051205112 magId "2051205112" @default.
• W2051205112 workType "article" @default.