DOCSLIB.ORG

Evidence Synthesis Number 197 Screening for Hypertension in Adults

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evidence Synthesis Number 197 Screening for Hypertension in Adults Evidence Synthesis Number 197 Screening for Hypertension in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA-290-2015-000017-I-EPC5, Task Order No. 5 Prepared by: Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Portland, OR Investigators: Janelle M. Guirguis-Blake, MD Corinne V. Evans, MPP Elizabeth M. Webber, MS Erin L. Coppola, MPH Leslie A. Perdue, MPH Meghan Soulsby Weyrich, MPH AHRQ Publication No. 20-05265-EF-1 June 2020 This report is based on research conducted by the Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA-290-2015-000017-I-EPC5, Task Order No. 5). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to help health care decision makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients). The final report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this project: Tina Fan, MD, MPH, at AHRQ; current and former members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force who contributed to topic deliberations; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for providing federal partner review of the draft report; Beverly Green, MD, MPH, Mike LeFevre, MD, MSPH, Paul Muntner, PhD, Daichi Shimbo, MD, and Reem Mustafa, MBBS, PhD, MPH, who provided expert review of the draft report; Jennifer S Lin, MD, MCR, for mentoring and project oversight; and Todd Hannon, MLS, and Katherine Essick, BS, for technical and editorial assistance at the Center for Health Research. Screening for Hypertension in Adults ii Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates EPC Structured Abstract Objective: We conducted this systematic review to support the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in updating its recommendation on screening for hypertension in adults. This systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, including the accuracy of initial office-based screening measurements during a single encounter and confirmatory blood pressure measurements using various modalities in those who initially screen positive. Data Sources: We performed a search of MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher-supplied records only), , the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health for relevant English-language studies published between February2014, and August 2019. Additionally, we re-evaluated all studies included in the 2014 USPSTF review. We supplemented searches by examining bibliographies from retrieved articles and consulting outside experts. We searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and/or unpublished trials. We conducted ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through March 20, 2020. Study Selection: Two investigators independently reviewed 21,741 abstracts and 544 full-text articles against a set of a priori inclusion and quality criteria. Resolution of disagreements was achieved through discussion with a third reviewer. We included the following study designs: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) for effectiveness of screening (KQ1); test accuracy studies for accuracy of initial office-based blood pressure screening (KQ2) and subsequent confirmatory blood pressure measurements (KQ3) using an ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) reference standard; and RCTs, CCTs, and cohort and cross-sectional studies for screening and confirmation harms (KQ4). Data Analysis: One investigator abstracted data into evidence tables and a second investigator checked accuracy. We qualitatively synthesized data separately for each key question. We meta- analyzed study results for Key Questions 2 and 3. Our quantitative analyses utilized a bivariate model for sensitivity and specificity outcomes. We used visual inspection of forest plots arranged by various study, population, and test characteristics to explore heterogeneity. Results: For KQ1, one community-based cluster RCT (N=140,642) of a multicomponent CVD health promotion program that included hypertension screening as the primary intervention for older adults reported a 9 percent relative reduction in composite CVD-related hospital admissions (rate ratio 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.97]). For KQ2, meta-analysis of 15 studies (N=11,309) of office-based blood pressure measurement (OBPM) for screening at a single visit demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.70) and a pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.95) with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. For KQ3, 18 studies (N=57,128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities reported data that allowed accuracy calculations; these studies used confirmation modalities of: OBPM, home blood pressure measurement (HBPM), self-OBPM (measurement performed by a patient in the office setting), and truncated ABPM. Meta-analysis of eight OBPM confirmation studies (N=53,183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.88) and a pooled specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.66) with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Meta- Screening for Hypertension in Adults iii Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates EPC analysis of four HBPM confirmation studies (N=1,001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.90) and a pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.71) with considerable statistical heterogeneity. Two studies of self-OBPM (N=698) and one study of truncated ABPM (N=263) provided a limited evidence base for determination of accuracy for these modalities. There was limited information about the accuracy of protocol variations, precluding conclusions about the optimal protocol characteristics for screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurement in the included studies. For KQ4, 13 studies (N=5,150) suggest that screening is associated with no decrements in quality of life or psychological distress and scant evidence on screening’s effect on absenteeism is mixed. ABPM followup testing is associated with minor adverse events including temporary sleep disturbance and bruising. Limitations: The literature identified for blood pressure screening and confirmation accuracy represented a heterogeneous group of studies resulting in inconsistent and imprecise accuracy estimates. The included protocol characteristics for screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements likely represent “research quality” measures not followed in current practice. Conclusions: Blood pressure screening at a single visit has a low sensitivity and adequate specificity for detection of hypertension, leading to a substantial number of potentially missed cases. Confirmatory office or home blood pressure measurement applied to a population with a previously elevated blood pressure has adequate sensitivity and low specificity suggesting that these modalities may not be appropriate replacements for ABPM for diagnostic confirmation. Scant literature is available to inform best practices in blood pressure measurement to optimize test accuracy. Limited available evidence on the direct harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements suggest that the harms are minimal, and the most notable harm of blood pressure screening is likely misdiagnosis with ensuant under or over-treatment. Future research is needed to identify optimal blood pressure measurement protocols and confirmation algorithms—including blood pressure threshold values—to inform clinical practice. Screening for Hypertension in Adults iv Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates EPC Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Topic Importance ........................................................................................................................ 1 Natural History.......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Blood Pressure Training Curriculum for the Dental Team
    Blood Pressure Training Curriculum for the Dental Team 2018 Blood Pressure Training Curriculum for the Dental Team TABLE OF CONTENTS Learning Objectives 1 Hypertension: An Introduction 1 Hypertension: Implications for the Dental Team 4 Recording Blood Pressure 7 Special Case Scenarios 9 Close the Loop: Refer to the Primary Care Physician 10 Appendix A: List of anti-hypertensive medications 11 Appendix B: Template referral form to primary care provider 13 LEARNING OBJECTIVES At the end of this training, the participant should: • Understand the basics of hypertension. • Identify various categories of hypertension. • Understand the appropriate technique of recording blood pressure. • Recognize the need to measure blood pressure for every new patient, and at least annually on follow-up visits. • Recognize the need to refer a patient with hypertension to a primary care provider. Hypertension: An Introduction What is blood pressure? Blood pressure is the force of blood pushing against the walls of the arteries that carry blood from the heart to other parts of the body. Blood pressure normally rises and falls throughout the day based on an individual’s activity. High blood pressure, also known as hypertension (HTN), is a disease that occurs when blood pressure stays above normal for a long time. As a result, the walls of arteries get stretched beyond their healthy limit and damage occurs creating a variety of other health problems.1 What is the burden of hypertension?2 • Hypertension is the 13th leading cause of death in the United States. • In North Carolina in 2015, hypertension was the primary cause of 942 deaths (about 1% of all deaths) and a contributing cause to 23,495 heart disease and stroke deaths.
    [Show full text]
  • Screening Mammography Programs
    EARLY DETECTION Screening Mammography Programs Knowledge Summary EARLY DETECTION Screening Mammography Programs WHO considers an effective, organized screening program to be INTRODUCTION one in which the participation rate (number of invitees actually Early detection is an important component of a comprehen- screened) of the target population is over 70%. However, high sive breast cancer care strategy. It includes early diagnosis participation rates may not be achieved in the first few years of of symptomatic women and may include screening programs a program, and programs should set short-term and long-term offered to asymptomatic women. The goal of early detection is goals. Short-term measures of program effectiveness include to increase the chances of successful treatment by detecting low false positive, false negative and recall rates. Long-term the disease at an early stage, when the available treatments measures of program effectiveness include a reduction in the are more effective. Mammography can play an important percentage of women presenting with late-stage disease. A pro- role in breast cancer control programs when the incidence of gram’s long-term success is determined by a reduction in breast breast cancer in the target population is high and resources for cancer mortality ascertained through population-based registry providing an accurate diagnosis and effective treatment are data. Using data from the randomized clinical trials of mam- universally available and accessible in a timely manner. Screen- mographic screening, mortality only starts to fall by the third ing programs require health system coordination of patient year, when the earliest effect of the first screen is expressed and care so that follow up diagnostic and treatment services are will continue to decline for several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Thirty-Minute Office Blood Pressure Monitoring in Primary Care
    Thirty-Minute Office Blood Pressure Monitoring in Primary Care Michiel J. Bos, MD, PhD ABSTRACT Sylvia Buis, MD, MPH PURPOSE Automated office blood pressure monitoring during 30 minutes Gezondheidscentrum Ommoord, Rotter- (OBP30) may reduce overtreatment of patients with white-coat hypertension dam, the Netherlands in primary health care. OBP30 results approximate those of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, but OBP30 is much more convenient. In this study, we compared OBP30 with routine office blood pressure (OBP) readings for different indications in primary care and evaluated how OBP30 influenced the medication prescribing of family physicians. METHODS All consecutive patients who underwent OBP30 for medical reasons over a 6-month period in a single primary health care center in the Netherlands were enrolled. We compared patients’ OBP30 results with their last preceding routine OBP reading, and we asked their physicians why they ordered OBP30, how they treated their patients, and how they would have treated their patients without it. RESULTS We enrolled 201 patients (mean age 68.6 years, 56.7% women). The mean systolic OBP30 was 22.8 mm Hg lower than the mean systolic OBP (95% CI, 19.8-26.1 mm Hg). The mean diastolic OBP30 was 11.6 mm Hg lower than the mean diastolic OBP (95% CI, 10.2-13.1 mm Hg). Considerable differences between OBP and OBP30 existed in patients with and without suspected white- coat hypertension, and differences were larger in individuals aged 70 years or older. Based on OBP alone, physicians said they would have started or intensified medication therapy in 79.1% of the studied cases (95% CI, 73.6%-84.6%).
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of White-Coat Hypertension on Heart Rate Recovery and Blood Pressure Response During Exercise Test
    Kosin Medical Journal 2020;35:89-100. https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2020.35.2.89 Effects of White-coat Hypertension on Heart Rate Recovery and Blood Pressure Response during Exercise Test Sol Jin 1, Jung Ho Heo 2, Bong Jun Kim 2 1Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea 2Department of Cardiology, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea Objectives : White-coat hypertension is defined as high blood pressure (BP) on clinical assessment but normal BP elsewhere or on ambulatory measurement. Autonomic dysfunction may be one of the mechanisms causing white-coat hypertension. Slowed heart rate recovery and excessive BP response during exercise test are associated with autonomic dysfunction. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between white-coat hypertension and abnormal autonomic nervous system response. Methods : We assessed 295 patients stratified into three groups via 24hr ambulatory BP monitoring, following 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines : normal BP group, white-coat hypertension group, and a hypertension group. We analyzed medical history, blood test, echocardiography, 24hr ambulatory BP monitoring, and exercise test data. Results : There was no difference in basement characteristics and echocardiography among the groups. Blunted heart rate recovery of each group showed a significant difference. Control group had 0% blunted heart rate recovery, but 33.3% in white coat group and 27.6% in true hypertension group ( P < 0.001). Also, in the control group, 4.5% showed excessive BP response, but 31.5% in the white coat hypertension group and 29.3% in the true hypertension group ( P < 0.001).
    [Show full text]
  • White Coat Hypertension and Target Organ Involvement: the Impact of Different Cut-Off Levels on Albuminuria and Left Ventricular Mass and Geometry
    Journal of Human Hypertension (1998) 12, 433–439 1998 Stockton Press. All rights reserved 0950-9240/98 $12.00 http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/jhh ORIGINAL ARTICLE White coat hypertension and target organ involvement: the impact of different cut-off levels on albuminuria and left ventricular mass and geometry AHøegholm, KS Kristensen, LE Bang and JW Nielsen Department of Internal Medicine, County Central Hospital, N{stved, Denmark The aim of this cross-sectional study which took place atory daytime BP of 135.6/90.4 mm Hg was found to cor- in a hypertension clinic at a district general hospital in respond to an office BP of 140/90 mm Hg in normal con- Denmark was to make a pragmatic definition of white trols; used as a cut-off level in patients with newly coat hypertension. A total of 420 patients were referred diagnosed hypertension it separated 19% as white coat consecutively from general practice with newly diag- hypertensives. The end-organ involvement of these nosed untreated essential hypertension and 146 normal white coat hypertensives differed significantly from subjects were drawn at random from the Danish those with established hypertension but not from the national register. The following measurements were normal controls. Lower cut-off levels were less efficient taken: office blood pressure; 24-h ambulatory blood in this respect, as was the case when the systolic BP pressure (BP) monitoring; echocardiography with deter- was not taken into account. mination of left ventricular mass index and relative wall In conclusion a pragmatic definition of white coat thickness; and early morning urine albumin/creatinine hypertension should—apart from well-established ratios.
    [Show full text]
  • Breast Imaging Faqs
    Breast Imaging Frequently Asked Questions Update 2021 The following Q&As address Medicare guidelines on the reporting of breast imaging procedures. Private payer guidelines may vary from Medicare guidelines and from payer to payer; therefore, please be sure to check with your private payers on their specific breast imaging guidelines. Q: What differentiates a diagnostic from a screening mammography procedure? Medicare’s definitions of screening and diagnostic mammography, as noted in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS’) National Coverage Determination database, and the American College of Radiology’s (ACR’s) definitions, as stated in the ACR Practice Parameter of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography, are provided as a means of differentiating diagnostic from screening mammography procedures. Although Medicare’s definitions are consistent with those from the ACR, the ACR's definitions of screening and diagnostic mammography offer additional insight into what may be included in these procedures. Please go to the CMS and ACR Web site links noted below for more in- depth information about these studies. Medicare Definitions (per the CMS National Coverage Determination for Mammograms 220.4) “A diagnostic mammogram is a radiologic procedure furnished to a man or woman with signs and symptoms of breast disease, or a personal history of breast cancer, or a personal history of biopsy - proven benign breast disease, and includes a physician's interpretation of the results of the procedure.” “A screening mammogram is a radiologic procedure furnished to a woman without signs or symptoms of breast disease, for the purpose of early detection of breast cancer, and includes a physician’s interpretation of the results of the procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • White Coat Hypertension in Children And
    ISSN: 2474-3690 Çakıcı et al. J Hypertens Manag 2019, 5:043 DOI: 10.23937/2474-3690/1510043 Volume 5 | Issue 2 Journal of Open Access Hypertension and Management REsEaRch aRTiclE White Coat Hypertension in Children and Adolescents: Innocent or Not? Evrim Kargın Çakıcı*, Eda Didem Kurt Şükür, Fatma Yazılıtaş, Gökçe Gür, Tülin Güngör, Evra Çelikkaya, Deniz Karakaya and Mehmet Bülbül Department of Pediatric Nephrology and Rheumatology, Dr. Sami Ulus Maternity and Child Health and Check for Diseases Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey updates *Corresponding author: Evrim Kargin Cakici, MD, Department of Pediatric Nephrology and Rheumatology, Dr. Sami Ulus Maternity and Child Health and Diseases Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey, GSM: 00905052653472 Abstract Introduction Background: The clinical significance of white coat hyper- After the advent of ambulatory blood pressure tension is still uncertain. We aimed to evaluate children with monitoring (ABPM) the management of blood pres- white coat hypertension regarding their clinical, laboratory sure (BP) has dramatically changed [1,2]. Ambulatory characteristics, evidence of target organ damage and com- pare them to normotensive and hypertensive children. blood pressure monitoring provides a more accurate measurement of BP than auscultatory or automated Methods: Fourty patients diagnosed with white coat hy- office readings and it is shown to be superior in ad- pertension, 40 patients with primary hypertension and 40 normotensive children of similar age, gender and body ministration or adjustion of antihypertensive treat- mass index were included in the study. Ambulatory blood ment and prediction of cardiovascular morbidity. An- pressure monitoring and echocardiographic examination other superiority of ABPM is the detection of white were performed to all children.
    [Show full text]
  • New Guidelines for Mammography Screening
    Providence Health & Services position statement on breast health and breast cancer screening Breast health experts at Providence Health & Services recognize the importance and complexity of counseling women on breast health and screening recommendations. In November 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued updated guidelines for breast cancer screening. These new recommendations have been met with uneven acceptance from various foundations, professional organizations and breast health providers. OUR MISSION We have reviewed these new recommendations carefully and have engaged a number of As people of Providence, concerned providers, physicians and women’s health advocates in order to gain consensus around we reveal God’s love for all, this important issue. In general, Providence endorses the thorough, professional and evidence- especially the poor and vulnerable, based effort put forth by the USPSTF and recognizes these are difficult issues to analyze. through our compassionate service. We have considered the following: OUR CORE VALUES Respect, Compassion, Justice, • In women of ordinary risk who have no signs or symptoms of breast cancer, the incidence of Excellence, Stewardship breast cancer increases with age. It is very uncommon in younger women and becomes more common in older women. • Conversely breast cancers tend to advance more rapidly in younger women and less rapidly www.providence.org/oregon in older women. • Screening mammography has been shown to reduce the death rate from breast cancer. Screening mammography allows cancers to be found when they are smaller and less likely to have spread. The survival benefit conferred by screening mammography has been proven in women ages 40 to 70. In any screening program, there is a trade-off between harm and benefit.
    [Show full text]
  • Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer and the Human Papillomavirus
    MONOGRAPH HEAD AND NECK SQUAMOUS CELL CANCER AND THE HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS: SUMMARY OF A NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE STATE OF THE SCIENCE MEETING, NOVEMBER 9–10, 2008, WASHINGTON, D.C. David J. Adelstein, MD,1 John A. Ridge, MD, PhD,2 Maura L. Gillison, MD, PhD,3 Anil K. Chaturvedi, PhD,4 Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD,5 Patti E. Gravitt, PhD,5 William Westra, MD,6 Amanda Psyrri, MD, PhD,7 W. Martin Kast, PhD,8 Laura A. Koutsky, PhD,9 Anna Giuliano, PhD,10 Steven Krosnick, MD,4 Andy Trotti, MD,10 David E. Schuller, MD,3 Arlene Forastiere, MD,6 Claudio Dansky Ullmann, MD4 1 Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, Ohio. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3 Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio 4 National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 5 Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 6 Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 7 Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 8 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 9 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 10 H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida Accepted 14 August 2009 Published online 29 September 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hed.21269 VC 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 31: 1393–1422, 2009* Keywords: human papillomavirus; head and neck squamous Correspondence to: D. J. Adelstein cell cancer; state of the science Contract grant sponsor: NIH. Gypsyamber D’Souza is an advisory board member and received For the purpose of clinical trials, head and neck research funding from Merck Co.
    [Show full text]