| 제목 | [2010] A comparison of cancer screening practices in cancer survivors and in the general population: the Korean national health and nutrition examination survey (KNHANES) 2001-2007. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 작성자 | 관리자 | 등록일 | 2012-08-17 |
내용
Cancer Causes Control. 2010 Dec;21(12):2203-12. Epub 2010 Nov 4.
A comparison of cancer screening practices in cancer survivors and in the general population: the Korean national health and nutrition examination survey (KNHANES) 2001-2007.
Cho J, Guallar E, Hsu YJ, Shin DW, Lee WC.
SourceCancer Education Center, Samsung Comprehensive Cancer Center, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe cancer screening rates for second primary cancer among cancer survivors in Korea, and to compare these rates with those of two control groups: individuals without a history of cancer but with other chronic diseases, and individuals without a history of cancer and without other chronic diseases.
METHODS: The study is a cross-sectional analysis of 15,556 adults ≥ 30 years old who participated in the 2001, 2005, and 2007 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (KNHANES). The prevalence of breast, cervical, gastric, and colorectal cancer screening examinations according to national guidelines was assessed and compared to two control groups.
RESULTS: Screening rates among cancer survivors were 48.5, 54.7, 34.7, and 28.6% for breast, cervical, gastric, and colorectal cancer screening, respectively. Cancer survivors showed higher screening rates for all four cancer sites compared with both control groups, but breast cancer screening was only statistically significant after adjusting gender, age, marital status, education, income, working status, health insurance, smoking and drinking status, and self-reported health status.
CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors were more likely than individuals without a cancer history to obtain screening examinations according to recommended guidelines. Still, screening rates even among survivors were suboptimal, emphasizing the need for a more systematic approach to second primary cancer screening and prevention.
