2017
DOI: 10.1016/s2055-6640(20)30891-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

O8 Optimal liver cancer surveillance in the community: do recall and reminder systems hold the answer?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(27) We found only three Australian publications investigating liver cancer. (28)(29)(30) While, the proportion of lung cancer publications identified in this study is comparable to current broader lung cancer research, representing only 6.5% of cancer research. (31) This small percentage does not align with the global burden of lung cancer; as the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death.…”
Section: Comparison With Existing Literaturementioning
confidence: 56%
“…(27) We found only three Australian publications investigating liver cancer. (28)(29)(30) While, the proportion of lung cancer publications identified in this study is comparable to current broader lung cancer research, representing only 6.5% of cancer research. (31) This small percentage does not align with the global burden of lung cancer; as the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death.…”
Section: Comparison With Existing Literaturementioning
confidence: 56%
“…However, although over 70% of the cohort that were eligible for HCC surveillance received an ultrasound in the prior 12 months, it was notable that despite the high burden of risk factors for HCC, there was only a single confirmed case of HCC in the cohort. Whilst incomplete screening raises the possibility of underdiagnosis, screening rates (during a period impacted significantly by the global COVID-19 pandemic) were not worse than those reported in Australian metropolitan settings [ 67 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, Goldberg’s study encompassed patients followed-up in both community or specialist practices, and found that number of specialist visits was the strongest predictor for greater surveillance participation[ 7 ]. Adherence rates for those in non-specialist care have historically been low, with international and limited local data showing optimal surveillance uptake of only 8.8%-27%[ 3 , 20 , 21 ]. Specialist input may serve as a surrogate marker for greater frequency of reminders for test follow-up, may select for a group of patients more engaged with healthcare, or indicate more unwell patients undergoing imaging for reasons other than surveillance[ 22 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%