Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev ; 25(12): 1635-1642, 2016 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27635065

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pathology tissue specimens with associated epidemiologic and clinical data are valuable for cancer research. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial undertook a large-scale effort to create a public resource of pathology tissues from PLCO participants who developed a cancer during the trial. METHODS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks were obtained from pathology laboratories on a loan basis for central processing of tissue microarrays, with additional free-standing tissue cores collected for nucleic acid extraction. RESULTS: Pathology tissue specimens were obtained for prostate cancer (n = 1,052), lung cancer (n = 434), colorectal cancer (n = 675) and adenoma (n = 658), ovarian cancer and borderline tumors (n = 212), breast cancer (n = 870), and bladder cancer (n = 204). The process of creating this resource was complex, involving multidisciplinary teams with expertise in pathology, epidemiology, information technology, project management, and specialized laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: Creating the PLCO tissue resource required a multistep process, including obtaining medical records and contacting pathology departments where pathology materials were stored after obtaining necessary patient consent and authorization. The potential to link tissue biomarkers to prospectively collected epidemiologic information, screening and clinical data, and matched blood or buccal samples offers valuable opportunities to study etiologic heterogeneity, mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and biomarkers for early detection and prognosis. IMPACT: The methods and protocols developed for this effort, and the detailed description of this resource provided here, will be useful for those seeking to use PLCO pathology tissue specimens for their research and may also inform future tissue collection efforts in other settings. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(12); 1635-42. ©2016 AACR.


Asunto(s)
Bancos de Muestras Biológicas , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/patología , Anciano , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Masculino , Neoplasias Ováricas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Ováricas/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/patología
2.
Clin Med Res ; 13(3-4): 139-48, 2015 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26387707

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To obtain information from participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial regarding their perception of the retention materials employed by the screening centers. Also, to determine the viability of using email or the internet as a data collection tool with an older population. DESIGN: Three of ten PLCO screening centers queried participants towards the end of the study (2010) as to their opinions of the various retention materials and whether they would have been willing to use electronic communication for study activities, had the option been available. SETTING: The questionnaires were administered by mail, and responses were returned to the originating screening center. PARTICIPANTS: The participants in this study consisted of all the active participants at three PLCO screening centers: the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, the University of Utah, and Henry Ford Health System. METHODS: A short, self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all active participants at three PLCO centers (n=41,482). This was a one-time mailing with no follow-up, as the responses were designed to be anonymous in order to obtain the most honest responses. RESULTS: The response rate was 62%. Of respondents, 97% reported their PLCO experience was good or excellent. Nearly 50% of respondents indicated that receipt of an annual newsletter made them more likely to participate; newsletter features they reported as most important were those that conveyed information on cancer, study findings, and how their data were being used. Results did not support study coordinators' suppositions that receipt of a token gift or birthday card by participants was important for retention. Fewer than 30% of respondents indicated that they would have been unwilling to use a secure website to complete study forms. CONCLUSION: These data indicate the importance of querying participants rather than relying on impressions of study staff, and also indicate that the internet will be a viable means of data collection in future prevention studies that include older Americans.


Asunto(s)
Tamizaje Masivo , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Participación del Paciente , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad
3.
Prev Med ; 67: 82-8, 2014 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25038532

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Identify predictors of non-compliance with first round screening exams in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. METHOD: The PLCO was conducted from 1993 to 2011 at 10 US institutions. A total of 154,897 healthy men and women ages 55-74 years were randomized. Intervention arm participants were invited to receive gender-appropriate screening exams for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Using intervention-arm data (73,036 participants), non-compliance percentages for 13 covariates were calculated, as were unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals. Covariates included demographic factors as well as factors specific to PLCO (e.g., method of consent, distance from screening center). RESULTS: The rate of non-compliance was 11% overall but varied by screening center. Significant associations were observed for most covariates but indicated modest increases or decreases in odds. An exception was the use of a two-step consent process (consented intervention arm participants for exams after randomization) relative to a one-step process (consented all participants prior to randomization) (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.0-2.5). Non-compliance percentages increased with further distance from screening centers, but ORs were not significantly different from 1. CONCLUSIONS: Many factors modestly influenced compliance. Consent process was the strongest predictor of compliance.


Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Tamizaje Masivo/estadística & datos numéricos , Cooperación del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Neoplasias Colorrectales/prevención & control , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/prevención & control , Masculino , Tamizaje Masivo/psicología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias Ováricas/prevención & control , Cooperación del Paciente/psicología , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Neoplasias de la Próstata/prevención & control
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...