DOCSLIB.ORG

Prevention & Early Detection Facts & Figures 2019-2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prevention & Early Detection Facts & Figures 2019-2020 Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Facts & Figures 2019-2020 Current* Cigarette Smoking (%), Adults 18 Years and Older by State, 2017 WA NH ME MT ND VT OR MN ID MA SD WI NY WY MI RI IA PA CT NV NE OH NJ UT IL IN CA DE CO WV KS VA MD MO KY DC NC TN AZ OK NM AR SC MS AL GA TX LA AK FL 22% to 26% 18% to 21% PR 15% to 17% HI 9% to 14% *Smoked 100 cigarettes in lifetime and are current smokers (regular and irregular). Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2017. Contents Introduction 1 Infectious Agents 32 References 1 Human Papillomavirus 32 Highlights, CPED 2019-2020 1 Helicobacter Pylori 34 Hepatitis B Virus 35 Tobacco 2 Hepatitis C Virus 37 Cigarette Smoking 2 Human Immunodeficiency Virus 38 Other Combustible Tobacco Products 3 Epstein-Barr Virus 38 E-cigarettes (Vaping Devices) 4 References 38 Smokeless Tobacco Products 7 Secondhand Smoke 7 Occupational and Environmental Cancer Tobacco Cessation 8 Risk Factors 40 Reducing Tobacco Use and Exposure 9 Occupational Cancer Risk Factors 41 References 12 Environmental Cancer Risk Factors 41 Conclusions 44 Excess Body Weight, Alcohol, Diet, References 44 and Physical Activity 14 Excess Body Weight 14 Cancer Screening 45 Alcohol 16 Breast Cancer Screening 45 Diet 18 Cervical Cancer Screening 48 Physical Activity 21 Colorectal Cancer Screening 50 Type 2 Diabetes 22 Lung Cancer Screening 53 Community Action 22 Prostate Cancer Screening 53 References 25 Endometrial Cancer Screening 54 Cancer Screening Obstacles and Opportunities to Ultraviolet Radiation 27 Improve Utilization 54 Solar UVR Exposure 27 American Cancer Society Recommendations for the Early Artificial UVR Exposure (Indoor Tanning) 27 Detection of Cancer in Average-risk Asymptomatic People* 55 UVR Exposure and Protective Behaviors 28 References 57 Prevention Strategies in Skin Cancer 29 Special Notes 58 Early Detection of Skin Cancer 30 Glossary 58 References 31 Survey Sources 59 Global Headquarters: American Cancer Society Inc. This publication attempts to summarize current scientific information about cancer. 250 Williams Street, NW, Atlanta, GA 30303-1002 Except when specified, it does not represent the official policy of the American 404-320-3333 ©2019, American Cancer Society, Inc. All rights reserved, Cancer Society. including the right to reproduce this publication or portions thereof in any form. Suggested citation: American Cancer Society. Cancer Prevention & Early Detection For written permission, address the Legal department of the American Cancer Society, 250 Williams Street, NW, Facts & Figures 2019-2020. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2019. Atlanta, GA 30303-1002. Introduction Cancer prevention and early detection are central to the modifiable risk factors.3 Furthermore, cancer screening American Cancer Society’s mission to save lives, celebrate tests can prevent thousands of additional cancer cases lives, and lead the fight for a world without cancer. Over and deaths. the past several years, cancer incidence has decreased among men while remaining stable among women; cancer mortality has declined in recent decades.1 References Additional cancer morbidity and mortality could be 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69: 7-34. prevented by implementing evidence-based interventions 2. Siegel RL, Jemal A, Wender RC, Gansler T, Ma J, Brawley OW. An to reduce cancer risk factors and increase cancer screening assessment of progress in cancer control. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018. uptake.2 An estimated 42% of cancer cases and 45% of 3. Islami F, Goding Sauer A, Miller KD, et al. Proportion and number cancer deaths in the US are attributed to potentially of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68: 31-54. Ultraviolet Radiation Highlights, CPED 2019-2020 • Despite declining use in recent years, 8% of female high school Tobacco students in 2017 reported use of indoor tanning in the past year. • In 1965, 42% of adults were current cigarette smokers, • As of January 1, 2019, only 17 states and the District of Columbia decreasing to 14% in 2017. Prevalence varied widely by state, had a law prohibiting indoor tanning for minors without ranging from 9% in Utah to 26% in West Virginia. exemptions. • Current cigarette smoking among high school students • In 2015, approximately 4% of adults reported using an indoor declined from 29% in 1999 to 8% in 2018 and ranged from tanning device in the past year; use was highest among 4% in Utah and Puerto Rico to 14% in Arkansas, Kentucky, women, younger adults (ages 18-29 years), and those living in and West Viriginia in 2017. the Midwest. • Unchanged since 2009, the federal excise tax is $1.01 per pack. As of December 21, 2018, the average state cigarette excise tax was $1.79 per pack, ranging from 17 cents in Missouri to Infectious Agents • HPV vaccination among adolescents remains low. In 2017, $4.50 in the District of Columbia and $5.10 in Puerto Rico. 42% of girls and 31% of boys received two doses before their • Among high school students, current e-cigarette use 13th birthday. increased from about 2% in 2011 to 21% in 2018. • In 2017, 53% of girls and 44% of boys ages 13-17 years were up-to-date. Excess Body Weight, Alcohol, Diet, and Physical Activity • Among adults, the prevalence of overweight has remained Cancer Screening • In 2015, 50% of women ages 40 years and older reported relatively stable since the early 1960s, but obesity has having a mammogram within the past year, and 64% reported markedly increased. In 2015-2016, approximately 7 in 10 having one within the past two years. Mammography use in adults were overweight or obese; about 4 in 10 were obese. the past two years was lowest among the uninsured (31%). • From 1971 to 2002, the prevalence of obesity among youth • Among women ages 21-65 years, 83% were up-to-date with ages 2-19 years tripled from 5% to 15%, increasing to 19% in cervical cancer screening in 2015; uptake was lowest among 2015-2016. Among youth, the prevalence of obesity was higher the uninsured (64%) and recent immigrants (70%). in older (ages 12-19 years: 21%) than younger (ages 2-5 years: 14%) children in 2015-2016. • In 2015, 63% of adults ages 50 years and older were up-to- date for colorectal cancer screening. Prevalence was less than • In 2017, approximately 6% of adults reported drinking or equal to 50% among Hispanics, Asians, people with less heavily (>14 drinks per week for males or >7 drinks per than a high school diploma, recent immigrants, and the week for females). uninsured. • In 2017, an estimated 54% of adults and only 26% of high • In 2015, only 4% of eligible former and current smokers school students reported meeting recommended levels of reported having a low-dose computed tomography screening physical activity. for lung cancer in the past year. Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Facts & Figures 2019-2020 1 Tobacco The first US Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and smoking prevalence was lowest among Asians (7%) Health in 1964 concluded that cigarette smoking caused and highest among American Indians/Alaska Natives lung cancer.1 Since then, other tobacco products, (25%), with the largest gender gap in blacks and including cigars, cigarillos, waterpipes, and smokeless Asians (Table 1A). tobacco, have been causally linked to cancer as well.2 • Smoking prevalence in 2017 was lowest among those About 30% of all cancer deaths in the US3, 4 and as much with a graduate degree (4%) and highest among as 40% in men in some Southern states, are still caused adults with a GED (36%) (Table 1A). by smoking.5 Despite decades of declining smoking prevalence, the burden of smoking-related cancers • In 2017, smoking prevalence was lower among those remains high because the risk of cancer exists even after who self-identified as straight (14%) than among exposure has ceased. Additionally, smoking prevalence people who self-identified as gay or lesbian (18%) or remains high in many segments of the population (e.g., bisexual (22%) (Table 1A). those with low socioeconomic status and/or mental • By state, smoking prevalence was lowest in Utah (9%) illness).6 Tobacco use remains the most preventable and highest in West Virginia (26%) (Cover, Table 1B). cause of death in the US. Figure 1A. Proportion of Cancer Cases and Deaths Cigarette Smoking Attributable to Cigarette Smoking, Adults 30 Years Cigarette smoking increases the risk of several cancers, and Older, US, 2014 including those of the oral cavity and pharynx, larynx, Cases Deaths lung, esophagus, pancreas, uterine cervix, kidney, 82 Lung bladder, stomach, colorectum, liver; and acute myeloid 81 2 74 leukemia. Evidence suggests that smoking may also Larynx 72 increase the risk of fatal prostate cancer and a rare type 50 Esophagus of ovarian cancer.2, 7 The proportion of cases and deaths 50 Oral cavity, pharynx, 49 attributable to smoking varies across cancer sites (Figure nasal cavity, 47 1A).4 Health consequences increase with both duration paranasal sinus 47 Urinary bladder and intensity of smoking. 45 23 Liver Tobacco use in youth is an important public health issue 22 20 Cervix because almost 90% of adults who smoke regularly began 20 smoking before the age of 18; adolescents appear to be Kidney, renal pelvis, 17 more easily addicted to nicotine.8 ureter 17 17 Stomach 17 Adult Cigarette Smoking 15 Myeloid leukemia 15 • The prevalence of current smoking among adults 12 Colorectum decreased from 42% in 1965 to 25% in 1997.9 In 2017, 11 10 an estimated 14% (more than 34 million adults) were Pancreas 10 current smokers (Table 1A).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Meat, Fish and Dairy Products and the Risk of Cancer: a Summary Matrix 7 2
    Meat, fish and dairy products and the risk of cancer 2018 Contents World Cancer Research Fund Network 3 Executive summary 5 1. Meat, fish and dairy products and the risk of cancer: a summary matrix 7 2. Summary of Panel judgements 9 3. Definitions and patterns 11 3.1 Red meat 11 3.2 Processed meat 12 3.3 Foods containing haem iron 13 3.4 Fish 13 3.5 Cantonese-style salted fish 13 3.6 Grilled (broiled) or barbecued (charbroiled) meat and fish 14 3.7 Dairy products 14 3.8 Diets high in calcium 15 4. Interpretation of the evidence 16 4.1 General 16 4.2 Specific 16 5. Evidence and judgements 27 5.1 Red meat 27 5.2 Processed meat 31 5.3 Foods containing haem iron 35 5.4 Fish 36 5.5 Cantonese-style salted fish 37 5.6 Grilled (broiled) or barbecued (charbroiled) meat and fish 40 5.7 Dairy products 41 5.8 Diets high in calcium 51 5.9 Other 52 6. Comparison with the 2007 Second Expert Report 52 Acknowledgements 53 Abbreviations 57 Glossary 58 References 65 Appendix 1: Criteria for grading evidence for cancer prevention 71 Appendix 2: Mechanisms 74 Our Cancer Prevention Recommendations 79 2 Meat, fish and dairy products and the risk of cancer 2018 WORLD CANCER RESEARCH FUND NETWORK Our Vision We want to live in a world where no one develops a preventable cancer. Our Mission We champion the latest and most authoritative scientific research from around the world on cancer prevention and survival through diet, weight and physical activity, so that we can help people make informed choices to reduce their cancer risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposure to Carcinogens and Work-Related Cancer: a Review of Assessment Methods
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ISSN: 1831-9343 Exposure to carcinogens and work-related cancer: A review of assessment methods European Risk Observatory Report Exposure to carcinogens and work-related cancer: A review of assessment measures Authors: Dr Lothar Lißner, Kooperationsstelle Hamburg IFE GmbH Mr Klaus Kuhl (task leader), Kooperationsstelle Hamburg IFE GmbH Dr Timo Kauppinen, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Ms Sanni Uuksulainen, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Cross-checker: Professor Ulla B. Vogel from the National Working Environment Research Centre in Denmark Project management: Dr Elke Schneider - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers, or these calls may be billed. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( 48TU http://europa.euU48T). Cataloguing data can be found on the cover of this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014 ISBN: 978-92-9240-500-7 doi: 10.2802/33336 Cover pictures: (clockwise): Anthony Jay Villalon (Fotolia); ©Roman Milert (Fotolia); ©Simona Palijanskaite; ©Kari Rissa © European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work – EU-OSHA 1 Exposure to carcinogens and work-related cancer:
    [Show full text]
  • Carcinogens Are Mutagens
    -Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 70, No. 8, pp. 2281-2285, August 1973 Carcinogens are Mutagens: A Simple Test System Combining Liver Homogenates for Activation and Bacteria for Detection (frameshift mutagens/aflatoxin/benzo(a)pyrene/acetylaminofluorene) BRUCE N. AMES, WILLIAM E. DURSTON, EDITH YAMASAKI, AND FRANK D. LEE Biochemistry Department, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. 94720 Contributed by Bruce N. Ames, May 14, 1973 ABSTRACT 18 Carcinogens, including aflatoxin Bi, methylsulfoxide (Me2SO), spectrophotometric grade, was ob- benzo(a)pyrene, acetylaminofluorene, benzidine, and di- tained from Schwarz/Mann, sodium phenobarbital from methylamino-trans-stilbene, are shown to be activated by liver homogenates to form potent frameshift mutagens. Mallinckrodt, aflatoxin B1 from Calbiochem, and 3-methyl- We believe that these carcinogens have in common a ring cholanthrene from Eastman; 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene system sufficiently planar for a stacking interaction with was a gift of P. L. Grover. Schuchardt (Munich) was the DNA base pairs and a part of the molecule capable of being source for the other carcinogens. metabolized to a reactive group: these structural features are discussed in terms of the theory of frameshift muta- Bacterial Strains used are mutants of S. typhimurium LT-2 genesis. We propose that these carcinogens, and many have been discussed in detail others that are mutagens, cause cancer by somatic muta- and (2). tion. A simple, inexpensive, and extremely sensitive test for Source Liver. Male rats (Sprague-Dawley/Bio-1 strain, detection of carcinogens as mutagens is described. It con- of sists of the use of a rat or human liver homogenate for Horton Animal Laboratories) were maintained on Purina carcinogen activation (thus supplying mammalian metab- laboratory chow.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventive Health Care
    PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE DANA BARTLETT, BSN, MSN, MA, CSPI Dana Bartlett is a professional nurse and author. His clinical experience includes 16 years of ICU and ER experience and over 20 years of as a poison control center information specialist. Dana has published numerous CE and journal articles, written NCLEX material, written textbook chapters, and done editing and reviewing for publishers such as Elsevire, Lippincott, and Thieme. He has written widely on the subject of toxicology and was recently named a contributing editor, toxicology section, for Critical Care Nurse journal. He is currently employed at the Connecticut Poison Control Center and is actively involved in lecturing and mentoring nurses, emergency medical residents and pharmacy students. ABSTRACT Screening is an effective method for detecting and preventing acute and chronic diseases. In the United States healthcare tends to be provided after someone has become unwell and medical attention is sought. Poor health habits play a large part in the pathogenesis and progression of many common, chronic diseases. Conversely, healthy habits are very effective at preventing many diseases. The common causes of chronic disease and prevention are discussed with a primary focus on the role of health professionals to provide preventive healthcare and to educate patients to recognize risk factors and to avoid a chronic disease. nursece4less.com nursece4less.com nursece4less.com nursece4less.com 1 Policy Statement This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the policies of NurseCe4Less.com and the continuing nursing education requirements of the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation for registered nurses. It is the policy of NurseCe4Less.com to ensure objectivity, transparency, and best practice in clinical education for all continuing nursing education (CNE) activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorectal Cancer Screening Algorithm
    Colorectal Cancer Screening Page 1 of 6 Disclaimer: This algorithm has been developed for MD Anderson using a multidisciplinary approach considering circumstances particular to MD Anderson’s specific patient population, services and structure, and clinical information. This is not intended to replace the independent medical or professional judgment of physicians or other health care providers in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine a patient's care. This algorithm should not be used to treat pregnant women. This algorithm is not intended for individuals with a personal history of colorectal cancer 1. Note: Screening for adults age 76 to 85 years old should be evaluated on an individual basis by their health care provider to assess the risks and benefits of screen ing. Colorectal cancer screening is not recommended over age 85 years. TABLE OF CONTENTS Average Risk …………..………………...……………………..………………………………...Page 2 Increased Risk ………………………...…………………...………….………………………….Page 3 High Risk ………………………………………………………………………………………....Page 4 Suggested Readings …………………………………...……...………………………………….Page 5 Development Credits ………………………………………………….........................................Page 6 1 See the Colon or Rectal Cancer Treatment or Survivorship algorithms for the management of individuals with a personal history of colorectal cancer Department of Clinical Effectiveness V9 Approved by the Executive Committee of the Medical Staff on 09/21/2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening – Average Risk Page 2 of 6 Disclaimer: This algorithm has been developed for MD Anderson using a multidisciplinary approach considering circumstances particular to MD Anderson’s specific patient population, services and structure, and clinical information. This is not intended to replace the independent medical or professional judgment of physicians or other health care providers in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine a patient's care.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary Screening for Breast Cancer with Conventional Mammography: Clinical Summary
    Primary Screening for Breast Cancer With Conventional Mammography: Clinical Summary Population Women aged 40 to 49 y Women aged 50 to 74 y Women aged ≥75 y The decision to start screening should be No recommendation. Recommendation Screen every 2 years. an individual one. Grade: I statement Grade: B Grade: C (insufficient evidence) These recommendations apply to asymptomatic women aged ≥40 y who do not have preexisting breast cancer or a previously diagnosed high-risk breast lesion and who are not at high risk for breast cancer because of a known underlying genetic mutation Risk Assessment (such as a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation or other familial breast cancer syndrome) or a history of chest radiation at a young age. Increasing age is the most important risk factor for most women. Conventional digital mammography has essentially replaced film mammography as the primary method for breast cancer screening Screening Tests in the United States. Conventional digital screening mammography has about the same diagnostic accuracy as film overall, although digital screening seems to have comparatively higher sensitivity but the same or lower specificity in women age <50 y. For women who are at average risk for breast cancer, most of the benefit of mammography results from biennial screening during Starting and ages 50 to 74 y. While screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 y may reduce the risk for breast cancer death, the Stopping Ages number of deaths averted is smaller than that in older women and the number of false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies is larger. The balance of benefits and harms is likely to improve as women move from their early to late 40s.
    [Show full text]
  • Cancer Prevention Works. Reliable. Trusted. Scientific
    The work of CDC in 2018 included innovative communication approaches to promote cancer prevention, screening and early detection, research, and evidence-based programs. Achieving Progress in Programs CDC’s National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supported (NCCCP) celebrated 20 years of providing guidance to help 30 state, university, tribal organization grantees partnering programs put sustainable plans in action to prevent and with health systems to increase colorectal cancer screening in control cancer. More than 98,000 people have contributed high-need populations. For the 413 clinics enrolled in program to cancer coalitions and 69 cancer plans have been created year 1, screening rates increased 8.3 percentage points by the and updated. end of program year 2. Improving and Connecting Data to Prevention Through the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), data is now available for cancer prevalence and survival rates, along with incidence and mortality data at the national, state, and county level. Data can be easily and quickly viewed in multiple formats using our new interactive data visualization tool. Publications: Using Data to Inform Prevention Strategies Uterine cancer incidence and death rates increased among women in United States from 1999–2016. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)). CDC’s skin cancer prevention study demonstrates that state indoor tanning laws work as policy interventions to reduce indoor tanning behavior among adolescents. (American Journal of Public Health (AJPH)). Study results showed that the nation achieved the Healthy People 2020 target to reduce indoor tanning prevalence to 14% among CDC’s human papillomavirus adolescents in (HPV) study shows increasing grades 9 through rates of new HPV-associated 12, several years cancers among men and ahead of time.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Randomized Controlled Trials By
    Breast Cancer Screening: Understanding the Randomized Controlled Trials By: Phoebe Freer, MD, Linda Moy, MD, FSBI, Wendy DeMartini, MD, FSBI, and the Screening Leadership Group Screening mammography has been shown to decrease breast cancer mortality across multiple trials, and across many different study designs. Despite this, some opponents continue to question the value of mammography. Thus, it is increasingly important that breast imaging care providers understand the nature and results of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which have definitively demonstrated that screening mammography in women 40-74 years of age decreases deaths from breast cancer. Cancer localized in the breast is not what causes death; it is breast cancer spread (metastasis) to other organs that causes mortality. The goal of mammographic screening (and other breast cancer screening tests) is to detect breast cancer earlier than it would otherwise manifest clinically, when it is less likely to have spread. Data clearly show that detection of breast cancers at smaller sizes and lower stages is associated with better patient outcomes from lower morbidity and reduced breast cancer deaths. RCTs are the gold standard for proving that early detection with mammography decreases mortality from breast cancer. It is important to understand that the key evidence measure is the breast cancer death rate observed in the experimental group (women invited to have screening mammography) compared to that in the control group (women not invited to have screening mammography). It is not sufficient to use survival time (the time of discovery of the cancer to the date of death) between the groups, as this may reflect “lead-time” bias, in which a cancer is found earlier so survival time appears longer, but the date of death is not altered.
    [Show full text]
  • Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Facts & Figures 2019-2021
    Cancer Treatment & Survivorship Facts & Figures 2019-2021 Estimated Numbers of Cancer Survivors by State as of January 1, 2019 WA 386,540 NH MT VT 84,080 ME ND 95,540 59,970 38,430 34,360 OR MN 213,620 300,980 MA ID 434,230 77,860 SD WI NY 42,810 313,370 1,105,550 WY MI 33,310 RI 570,760 67,900 IA PA NE CT 243,410 NV 185,720 771,120 108,500 OH 132,950 NJ 543,190 UT IL IN 581,350 115,840 651,810 296,940 DE 55,460 CA CO WV 225,470 1,888,480 KS 117,070 VA MO MD 275,420 151,950 408,060 300,200 KY 254,780 DC 18,750 NC TN 470,120 AZ OK 326,530 NM 207,260 AR 392,530 111,620 SC 143,320 280,890 GA AL MS 446,900 135,260 244,320 TX 1,140,170 LA 232,100 AK 36,550 FL 1,482,090 US 16,920,370 HI 84,960 States estimates do not sum to US total due to rounding. Source: Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute. Contents Introduction 1 Long-term Survivorship 24 Who Are Cancer Survivors? 1 Quality of Life 24 How Many People Have a History of Cancer? 2 Financial Hardship among Cancer Survivors 26 Cancer Treatment and Common Side Effects 4 Regaining and Improving Health through Healthy Behaviors 26 Cancer Survival and Access to Care 5 Concerns of Caregivers and Families 28 Selected Cancers 6 The Future of Cancer Survivorship in Breast (Female) 6 the United States 28 Cancers in Children and Adolescents 9 The American Cancer Society 30 Colon and Rectum 10 How the American Cancer Society Saves Lives 30 Leukemia and Lymphoma 12 Research 34 Lung and Bronchus 15 Advocacy 34 Melanoma of the Skin 16 Prostate 16 Sources of Statistics 36 Testis 17 References 37 Thyroid 19 Acknowledgments 45 Urinary Bladder 19 Uterine Corpus 21 Navigating the Cancer Experience: Treatment and Supportive Care 22 Making Decisions about Cancer Care 22 Cancer Rehabilitation 22 Psychosocial Care 23 Palliative Care 23 Transitioning to Long-term Survivorship 23 This publication attempts to summarize current scientific information about Global Headquarters: American Cancer Society Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Detection and Screening for Breast Cancer
    Seminars in Oncology Nursing, Vol 33, No 2 (May), 2017: pp 141-155 141 EARLY DETECTION AND SCREENING FOR BREAST CANCER CATHY COLEMAN OBJECTIVE: To review the history, current status, and future trends related to breast cancer screening. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed articles, web sites, and textbooks. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer remains a complex, heterogeneous disease. Serial screening with mammography is the most effective method to detect early stage disease and decrease mortality. Although politics and economics may inhibit organized mammography screening programs in many countries, the judi- cious use of proficient clinical and self-breast examination can also identify small tumors leading to reduced morbidity. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nurses have exciting oppor- tunities to lead, facilitate, and advocate for delivery of high-quality screening services targeting individuals and communities. A practical approach is needed to translate the complexities and controversies surrounding breast cancer screen- ing into improved care outcomes. KEY WORDS: breast cancer, screening, early stage, quality, breast centers, advocacy. he future is hopeful for the public, pro- fessionals, and interdisciplinary teams as multifaceted progress continues to reveal new insights in carcinogenesis, ge- Cathy Coleman, DNP, MSN, PHN, OCN®, CPHQ, CNL: T nomics, tumor biology, translational research, and Assistant Professor, University of San Francisco School quality improvement from prevention to pallia- of Nursing and Health Professions, San Francisco, CA. tion and survivorship for cancer care.1-8 Oncology Address correspondence to Cathy Coleman, DNP, nurses are on the front line of care delivery across MSN, PHN, OCN®, CPHQ, CNL, University of San settings; they also assert a strong leadership voice Francisco School of Nursing and Health Professions, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Science Breast Cancer Fact Sheet
    Patient Version Breast Cancer Fact Sheet About Breast Cancer Breast cancer can start in any area of the breast. In the US, breast cancer is the most common cancer (after skin cancer) and the second-leading cause of cancer death (after lung cancer) in women. Risk Factors Risk factors for breast cancer that you cannot change Lifestyle-related risk factors for breast cancer include: • Drinking alcohol Being born female • Being overweight or obese, especially after menopause This is the main risk factor for breast cancer. But men can get breast cancer, too. • Not being physically active Getting older • Getting hormone therapy after menopause with As a person gets older, their risk of breast cancer estrogen and progesterone therapy goes up. Most breast cancers are found in women • Starting menstruation early or having late menopause age 55 or older. • Never having children or having first live birth after Personal or family history age 30 A woman who has had breast cancer in the past or has a • Using certain types of birth control close blood relative who has had breast cancer (mother, • Having a history of non-cancerous breast conditions father, sister, brother, daughter) has a higher risk of getting it. Having more than one close blood relative increases the risk even more. It’s important to know that Prevention most women with breast cancer don’t have a close blood There is no sure way to prevent breast cancer, and relative with the disease. some risk factors can’t be changed, such as being born female, age, race, and personal or family history of the Inheriting gene changes disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Cancer Prevention and Will Emphasize the Scientific Underpinnings of This Emerging Discipline
    Seminars in Oncology Nursing, Vol 21, No 4 (November), 2005: pp 229-235 229 OBJECTIVE: To summarize the scientific prin- ciples underlying cancer preven- tion. PRINCIPLES OF DATA SOURCES: Articles, text books, personal com- CANCER munications, and experience. CONCLUSION: PREVENTION The scientific basis of cancer pre- vention is complex and involves experimental and epidemiologic approaches and clinical trials. FRANK L. MEYSKENS,JR AND PATRICIA TULLY IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: ANCER prevention has classically encompassed As more information becomes three large areas of clinical practice: prevention, available regarding proven and screening, and early detection. Several excellent potential cancer-prevention strate- reviews and book chapters have been published gies, oncology nurses are regu- involving these topics.1-3 The importance of bio- larly called upon to guide patients Clogical and molecular markers as potential surrogates have been and others in making choices re- emphasized in the past several years,4,5 and more recently precan- garding preventative options. It is cers or intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN) have become a target.6,7 The important for oncology nurses to integration of the well-established approaches of prevention, stay abreast of this growing body screening, and early detection with biological measures of disease of knowledge. risk, progression, and prognosis has become the hallmark of mod- ern cancer prevention (see Fig 1). In this article we will review the principles of cancer prevention and will emphasize the scientific underpinnings of this emerging discipline. The principles of cancer prevention have evolved from three separate scientific disciplines: carcinogenesis, epidemiology, and clinical trials. Many other areas From the Department of Medicine and of science and medicine, including genetics and the behavioral Biological Chemistry, Chao Family Com- sciences, are contributing to this evolving and complex field.
    [Show full text]