Oral cancer exams among cigarette smokers in Maryland

Ling, Hua; Gadalla, Shahinaz M.; Israel, Ebenezer; Langenberg, P.; Zhan, Min; Dwyer, Diane M.; Groves, Carmela; Hopkins, Annette; Steinberger, Eileen K.

doi:10.1016/j.cdp.2006.10.005

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence for the negative effects of smoking on periodontal health remains irrefutable, and we recently reviewed the underlying mechanisms 14,45 . Furthermore, the risks presented by tobacco smoke inhalation for other oral conditions such as oral cancers, 46 implant failure, 47 and possibly endodontic complications, 48 in addition to multiple systemic diseases, 49,50 are large. Advice on the ill‐health effects of smoking and facilitation of smoking cessation remain fundamental responsibilities of all oral and general health professionals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progression of Periodontal Disease in a Maintenance Population of Smokers and Non‐Smokers: A 3‐Year Longitudinal Study

Fisher

Kells

Picard

et al. 2008

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progression of Periodontal Disease in a Maintenance Population of Smokers and Non‐Smokers: A 3‐Year Longitudinal Study

Fisher

Kells

Picard

et al. 2008

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The yearly probability of an oral exam for healthy and precancer patients by a health care provider in the No Screen cohort was estimated at 13% based on data from American smokers over 40 2. Subjects with Stage I/II and III/IV disease were assumed to have increased yearly rates of oral examination due to self‐referral at 60% and 90%, respectively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on national data from 1997–2001, oral cancer accounts for 1.6% of all new cancers in males and 0.9% of all new cancers in women in the United States 1. More than 95% of oral and pharyngeal cancers occurs in individuals over 40 years age with average at diagnosis of 60 years 2. Although overall 5‐year survival from lip cancers is roughly 93%, the other oral cancer subsites evince a much poorer prognosis 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cost‐effectiveness of community‐based screening for oral cancer in high‐risk males in the United States: A Markov decision analysis approach

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The 2004 US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines do not recommend routinely screening adults for oral cancer given no proven mortality reduction. A large cluster-randomized controlled screening trial in Kerala, India in 2005, however, reported a significant reduction in mortality for screened male tobacco and/or alcohol users. In the United States, office-based screening efforts targeting males of high-risk (regular use of tobacco and/or alcohol) have been unsuccessful due to poor attendance. Given the newfound screening mortality benefit to this high-risk subpopulation, we sought to ascertain the cost-effectiveness threshold of a yearly, community outreach screening program for males>40 years regularly using tobacco and/or alcohol. Study Design Markov decision analysis model; societal perspective Methods A literature search was performed to determine event probabilities, health utilities and cost parameters to serve as model inputs. Screen versus No Screen strategies were modeled using assumptions and published data. The primary outcome was the difference in costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between the two cohorts, representing the potential budget for a screening program. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed for several key parameters. Results The No Screen arm was dominated with an incremental cost of $258 and an incremental effectiveness of −0.0414 QALYs. Using the $75,000/QALY metric, the maximum allowable budget for a screening program equals $3,363 ($258+$3,105) per screened person over a 40-year time course. Conclusion Given the significant health benefits and financial savings via early detection in the screened cohort, a community-based screening program targeting high-risk males is likely to be cost-effective.

show abstract

“…Beginning in 2002, the state of Maryland conducted a statewide survey every 2 years through 2008 on cancer screening and risk behaviors, including questions on cigarette smoking and oral cancer screening (OCS). Using the Maryland data from 2002, Ling et al found that after controlling for demographic and health care characteristics, current and former smokers were no more likely than those who had never smoked cigarettes to report ever having had an OCS exam (13). We used data from four survey years to examine the relationship between self-reported OCS within the past year and smoking status and whether this relationship has changed over time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐reported oral cancer screening by smoking status in Maryland: trends over time

Viswanath

Kerns

Sorkin

et al. 2013

J Public Health Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The study aims to examine whether a higher proportion of current and former smokers reported having an oral cancer screening (OCS) exam in the past year compared with never smokers in Maryland between 2002 and 2008. Methods Secondary analysis of the Maryland Cancer Surveys (conducted in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008), population-based, random-digit-dial surveys on cancer screening among adults age 40 years and older. Of 20,197 individuals who responded to the surveys, 19,054 answered questions on OCS and smoking. Results are weighted to the Maryland population. Results Self-reported OCS in the past year increased from 33 percent in 2002 to 40 percent in 2008. Screening among never and former smokers increased from about 35 percent to 42 percent and from 35 percent to 43 percent, respectively; screening among current smokers remained between 23 percent and 25 percent. In the adjusted analysis, current smokers had decreased odds of screening compared with never smokers; no significant difference was observed between former and never smokers. When the variable dental visit in the last year was included in the adjusted analysis, it became the strongest predictor of OCS. Conclusions Between 2002 and 2008, self-reported OCS in the last year increased among former and never smokers, but remained unchanged for current smokers. A visit to a dental professional attenuated the difference in OCS between current and never smokers. Dental visit in the last year was the strongest predictor of OCS.

show abstract

Oral cancer exams among cigarette smokers in Maryland

Cited by 13 publications

References 17 publications

Progression of Periodontal Disease in a Maintenance Population of Smokers and Non‐Smokers: A 3‐Year Longitudinal Study

Progression of Periodontal Disease in a Maintenance Population of Smokers and Non‐Smokers: A 3‐Year Longitudinal Study

The cost‐effectiveness of community‐based screening for oral cancer in high‐risk males in the United States: A Markov decision analysis approach

Self‐reported oral cancer screening by smoking status in Maryland: trends over time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About