Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on February 2, 2009
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2009 24(7):2136-2143; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfp009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/7/2136    most recent
gfp009v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wong, G.
Right arrow Articles by Craig, J. C.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wong, G.
Right arrow Articles by Craig, J. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org



Reported cancer screening practices of nephrologists: results from a national survey

Germaine Wong1, Angela C. Webster1,2, Jeremy R. Chapman3 and Jonathan C. Craig1,2

1 NHMRC Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Renal Medicine, Children's Hospital at Westmead 2 School of Public Health, University of Sydney 3 Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Hospital, NSW, Australia

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Germaine Wong; E-mail: germainw{at}chw.edu.au



  Abstract

Background. Cancer is becoming increasingly recognized as a complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and screening is a widely used strategy to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This study aimed to describe cancer screening practices by nephrologists in Australia and New Zealand, and to identify reasons for a positive recommendation to screen.

Methods. Questionnaires were posted electronically to all nephrologists who were in adult clinical practice in 2007 using the Australia–New Zealand Society of Nephrology register. The survey instrument assessed nephrologists’ reported practice towards colorectal, breast and cervical cancer screening across all stages of CKD (CKD 1–5, dialysis and transplantation).

Results. Of the 250 eligible members, 131 (52%) participated, with over 75% recommending breast cancer screening (usually 1–2 yearly using combined mammography and breast-self examination), 48% recommending colorectal cancer screening (1–2 yearly faecal occult blood test) and 86% recommending cervical cancer screening (1–2 yearly conventional cytology). Recommendations to screen did not vary appreciably with CKD status. Recommended screening strategies were more frequent, included more invasive tests, and were targeted at a broader age range than national cancer screening programmes in the general population. Increased cancer prevalence and cancer-specific mortality benefits for screening were the most commonly reported and influential criteria for making a positive recommendation.

Conclusions. Most nephrologists recommend breast and cervical, but not colorectal cancer screening in people with CKD. Despite the lack of trial-based evidence of benefits of screening in this setting, recommended screening practices by nephrologists are more intense than for the general population. Increased disease prevalence appears to be the most influential factor for making a positive recommendation to screen in the CKD population even though this is not an internationally accepted criterion for a screening programme, and is not relevant for breast cancer, which is not increased in the CKD population.

Keywords: cancer; screening; survey

Received for publication: 20.10.08
Accepted in revised form: 5. 1.09


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.