Search

Your search keyword '"Tosteson, Anna N. A."' showing total 839 results
Start Over Author "Tosteson, Anna N. A."
839 results on '"Tosteson, Anna N. A."'

4. Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol

Author

Schubbe, Danielle, Yen, Renata W., Leavitt, Hannah, Forcino, Rachel C., Jacobs, Christopher, Friedman, Erica B., McEvoy, Maureen, Rosenkranz, Kari M., Rojas, Kristin E., Bradley, Ann, Crayton, Eloise, Jackson, Sherrill, Mitchell, Myrtle, O’Malley, A. James, Politi, Mary, Tosteson, Anna N. A., Wong, Sandra L., Margenthaler, Julie, Durand, Marie-Anne, and Elwyn, Glyn

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. An experience- and preference-based EQ-5D-3L value set derived using 18 months of longitudinal data in patients who sustained a fracture: results from the ICUROS

Author

Svedbom, Axel, Borgstöm, Fredrik, Hernlund, Emma, Alekna, Vidmantas, Bianchi, Maria Luisa, Clark, Patricia, Diaz-Curiel, Manuel, Dimai, Hans Peter, Jürisson, Mikk, Lesnyak, Olga, McCloskey, Eugene, Sanders, Kerrie M., Silverman, Stuart, Tamulaitiene, Marija, Thomas, Thierry, Tosteson, Anna N. A., Jönsson, Bengt, and Kanis, John A.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Decision quality and regret with treatment decisions in women with breast cancer: Pre-operative breast MRI and breast density

Author

Wernli, Karen J., Smith, Rebecca E., Henderson, Louise M., Zhao, Wenyan, Durham, Danielle D., Schifferdecker, Karen, Kaplan, Celia, Buist, Diana S. M., Kerlikowske, Karla, Miglioretti, Diana L., Onega, Tracy, Alsheik, Nila H., Sprague, Brian L., Jackson-Nefertiti, Gloria, Budesky, Jill, Johnson, Dianne, and Tosteson, Anna N. A.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Natural Language Processing to Identify Abnormal Breast, Lung, and Cervical Cancer Screening Test Results from Unstructured Reports to Support Timely Follow-up

Author

Diamond, Courtney J., primary, Laurentiev, John, additional, Yang, Jie, additional, Wint, Amy, additional, Harris, Kimberly A., additional, Dang, Tin H., additional, Mecker, Amrita, additional, Carpenter, Emily B., additional, Tosteson, Anna N., additional, Wright, Adam, additional, Haas, Jennifer S., additional, Atlas, Steven J., additional, and Zhou, Li, additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Response to Omoleye, Esserman, Olufunmilayo

Author

Kerlikowske, Karla, primary, Zhu, Weiwei, additional, Su, Yu-Ru, additional, Sprague, Brian L, additional, O’Meara, Ellen S, additional, Tosteson, Anna N A, additional, Wernli, Karen J, additional, and Miglioretti, Diana L, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. Predicting five-year interval second breast cancer risk in women with prior breast cancer.

Author

Hubbard, Rebecca A, Su, Yu-Ru, Bowles, Erin J A, Ichikawa, Laura, Kerlikowske, Karla, Lowry, Kathryn P, Miglioretti, Diana L, Tosteson, Anna N A, Wernli, Karen J, and Lee, Janie M

Subjects
BREAST cancer, RECEIVER operating characteristic curves, CARCINOMA in situ, DUCTAL carcinoma
Abstract

Background Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for women with a personal history of breast cancer. Risk prediction models that estimate mammography failures such as interval second breast cancers could help to tailor surveillance imaging regimens to women's individual risk profiles. Methods In a cohort of women with a history of breast cancer receiving surveillance mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in 1996-2019, we used Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO)-penalized regression to estimate the probability of an interval second cancer (invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ) in the 1 year after a negative surveillance mammogram. Based on predicted risks from this one-year risk model, we generated cumulative risks of an interval second cancer for the five-year period after each mammogram. Model performance was evaluated using cross-validation in the overall cohort and within race and ethnicity strata. Results In 173 290 surveillance mammograms, we observed 496 interval cancers. One-year risk models were well-calibrated (expected/observed ratio = 1.00) with good accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.64). Model performance was similar across race and ethnicity groups. The median five-year cumulative risk was 1.20% (interquartile range 0.93%-1.63%). Median five-year risks were highest in women who were under age 40 or pre- or perimenopausal at diagnosis and those with estrogen receptor-negative primary breast cancers. Conclusions Our risk model identified women at high risk of interval second breast cancers who may benefit from additional surveillance imaging modalities. Risk models should be evaluated to determine if risk-guided supplemental surveillance imaging improves early detection and decreases surveillance failures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density

Author

Kerlikowske, Karla, primary, Zhu, Weiwei, additional, Su, Yu-Ru, additional, Sprague, Brian L, additional, Stout, Natasha K, additional, Onega, Tracy, additional, O’Meara, Ellen S, additional, Henderson, Louise M, additional, Tosteson, Anna N A, additional, Wernli, Karen, additional, and Miglioretti, Diana L, additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. A Multilevel Primary Care Intervention to Improve Follow-Up of Overdue Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results

Author

Atlas, Steven J., primary, Tosteson, Anna N. A., additional, Wright, Adam, additional, Orav, E. John, additional, Burdick, Timothy E., additional, Zhao, Wenyan, additional, Hort, Shoshana J., additional, Wint, Amy J., additional, Smith, Rebecca E., additional, Chang, Frank Y., additional, Aman, David G., additional, Thillaiyapillai, Mathan, additional, Diamond, Courtney J., additional, Zhou, Li, additional, and Haas, Jennifer S., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.

Author

Kerlikowske, Karla, Zhu, Weiwei, Su, Yu-Ru, Sprague, Brian L, Stout, Natasha K, Onega, Tracy, O'Meara, Ellen S, Henderson, Louise M, Tosteson, Anna N A, Wernli, Karen, and Miglioretti, Diana L

Subjects
MAGNETIC resonance mammography, MAGNETIC resonance imaging, FAMILY history (Medicine), MEDICAL screening, BREAST biopsy
Abstract

Background Examining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts. Methods We evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score–matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy. Results Screen-detected early stage cancer rates were statistically higher for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (9.3 vs 2.9; difference = 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5 to 10.3) and dense (7.5 vs 3.5; difference = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.7) breasts and for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for dense breasts (19.2 vs 7.5; difference = 11.7, 95% CI = 4.6 to 18.8). Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (0.8 vs 0.5; difference = 0.4, 95% CI = -0.8 to 1.6) or dense breasts (1.5 vs 1.4; difference = 0.0, 95% CI = -1.2 to 1.3), nor were advanced cancer rates. Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for nondense (2.6 vs 0.8; difference = 1.8 (95% CI = -2.0 to 5.5) or dense breasts (0.6 vs 1.5; difference = -0.9, 95% CI = -2.5 to 0.7), nor were advanced cancer rates. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendation rates were statistically higher for MRI groups than mammography alone. Conclusion MRI screening with or without mammography increased rates of screen-detected early stage cancer and false-positives for women with dense breasts without a concomitant decrease in advanced or interval cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. Quality of life after hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fragility fractures measured using the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, and time-trade-off: results from the ICUROS

Author

Svedbom, Axel, Borgström, Fredrik, Hernlund, Emma, Ström, Oskar, Alekna, Vidmantas, Bianchi, Maria Luisa, Clark, Patricia, Curiel, Manuel Díaz, Dimai, Hans Peter, Jürisson, Mikk, Uusküla, Anneli, Lember, Margus, Kallikorm, Riina, Lesnyak, Olga, McCloskey, Eugene, Ershova, Olga, Sanders, Kerrie M., Silverman, Stuart, Tamulaitiene, Marija, Thomas, Thierry, Tosteson, Anna N. A., Jönsson, Bengt, and Kanis, John A.

Published
2018

20. Harnessing the Collective Expertise of Patients, Care Partners, Clinical Teams, and Researchers Through a Coproduction Learning Health System

Author

Tosteson, Anna N. A., primary, Kirkland, Kathryn B., additional, Holthoff, Megan M., additional, Van Citters, Aricca D., additional, Brooks, Gabriel A., additional, Cullinan, Amelia M., additional, Dowling-Schmitt, Miriam C., additional, Holmes, Anne B., additional, Meehan, Kenneth R., additional, Oliver, Brant J., additional, Wasp, Garrett T., additional, Wilson, Matthew M., additional, and Nelson, Eugene C., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

23. Quality of life after hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fragility fractures measured using the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, and time-trade-off: results from the ICUROS

Author

Svedbom, Axel, Borgström, Fredrik, Hernlund, Emma, Ström, Oskar, Alekna, Vidmantas, Bianchi, Maria Luisa, Clark, Patricia, Curiel, Manuel Díaz, Dimai, Hans Peter, Jürisson, Mikk, Uusküla, Anneli, Lember, Margus, Kallikorm, Riina, Lesnyak, Olga, McCloskey, Eugene, Ershova, Olga, Sanders, Kerrie M., Silverman, Stuart, Tamulaitiene, Marija, Thomas, Thierry, Tosteson, Anna N. A., Jönsson, Bengt, and Kanis, John A.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

27. An experience- and preference-based EQ-5D-3L value set derived using 18 months of longitudinal data in patients who sustained a fracture: results from the ICUROS

Author

Svedbom, Axel, primary, Borgstöm, Fredrik, additional, Hernlund, Emma, additional, Alekna, Vidmantas, additional, Bianchi, Maria Luisa, additional, Clark, Patricia, additional, Diaz-Curiel, Manuel, additional, Dimai, Hans Peter, additional, Jürisson, Mikk, additional, Lesnyak, Olga, additional, McCloskey, Eugene, additional, Sanders, Kerrie M., additional, Silverman, Stuart, additional, Tamulaitiene, Marija, additional, Thomas, Thierry, additional, Tosteson, Anna N. A., additional, Jönsson, Bengt, additional, and Kanis, John A., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Primary Care Providers’ Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients

Author

Haas, Jennifer S., Barlow, William E., Schapira, Marilyn M., MacLean, Charles D., Klabunde, Carrie N., Sprague, Brian L., Beaber, Elisabeth F., Chen, Jane S., Bitton, Asaf, Onega, Tracy, Harris, Kimberly, Tosteson, Anna N. A., and on behalf of the PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer

Author

Kerlikowske, Karla, Su, Yu-Ru, Sprague, Brian L., Tosteson, Anna N. A., Buist, Diana S. M., Onega, Tracy, Henderson, Louise M., Alsheik, Nila, Bissell, Michael C. S., O’Meara, Ellen S., Lee, Christoph I., and Miglioretti, Diana L.

Subjects
Adult, Risk, Time Factors, Breast Neoplasms, General Medicine, Middle Aged, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cohort Studies, Humans, Mass Screening, Female, Neoplasm Invasiveness, Breast, Early Detection of Cancer, Original Investigation, Aged, Breast Density, Mammography
Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries. EXPOSURES: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Among 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, −0.04; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, −0.53; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.32). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Screening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.

Published
2022

37. What matters most: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery encounter decision aids across socioeconomic strata

Author

Durand, Marie-Anne, Yen, Renata West, O’Malley, A. James, Politi, Mary C., Dhage, Shubhada, Rosenkranz, Kari, Weichman, Katie, Margenthaler, Julie, Tosteson, Anna N. A., Crayton, Eloise, Jackson, Sherrill, Bradley, Ann, Volk, Robert J., Sepucha, Karen, Ozanne, Elissa, Percac-Lima, Sanja, Song, Julia, Acosta, Jocelyn, Mir, Nageen, and Elwyn, Glyn

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium

Author

Tosteson, Anna N. A., Beaber, Elisabeth F., Tiro, Jasmin, Kim, Jane, McCarthy, Anne Marie, Quinn, Virginia P., Doria-Rose, V. Paul, Wheeler, Cosette M., Barlow, William E., Bronson, Mackenzie, Garcia, Michael, Corley, Douglas A., Haas, Jennifer S., Halm, Ethan A., Kamineni, Aruna, Rutter, Carolyn M., Tosteson, Tor D., Trentham-Dietz, Amy, Weaver, Donald L., and on behalf of the PROSPR consortium

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines

Author

Haas, Jennifer S., Sprague, Brian L., Klabunde, Carrie N., Tosteson, Anna N. A., Chen, Jane S., Bitton, Asaf, Beaber, Elisabeth F., Onega, Tracy, Kim, Jane J., MacLean, Charles D., Harris, Kimberly, Yamartino, Phillip, Howe, Kathleen, Pearson, Loretta, Feldman, Sarah, Brawarsky, Phyllis, Schapira, Marilyn M., and on behalf of the PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) Consortium

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

43. Falling down on the job: Evaluation and treatment of fall risk among older adults with upper extremity fragility fractures

Author

McDonough, Christine M., Colla, Carrie H., Carmichael, Donald, Tosteson, Anna N. A., Tosteson, Tor D., Bell, John-Erik, Cantu, Robert V., Lurie, Jonathan D., and Bynum, Julie P. W.

Subjects
Fractures (Injuries) -- Prevention -- Care and treatment -- Research -- Diagnosis, Evidence-based medicine -- Health aspects, Practice guidelines (Medicine) -- Analysis, Accidental falls -- Health aspects, Health
Abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend fall risk assessment and intervention for older adults who sustain a fall-related injury to prevent future injury and mobility decline. Objective: The aim of this [...]

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. Breast Biopsy Recommendations and Breast Cancers Diagnosed during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author

Lowry, Kathryn P., primary, Bissell, Michael C. S., additional, Miglioretti, Diana L., additional, Kerlikowske, Karla, additional, Alsheik, Nila, additional, Macarol, Tere, additional, Bowles, Erin J. A., additional, Buist, Diana S. M., additional, Tosteson, Anna N. A., additional, Henderson, Louise, additional, Herschorn, Sally D., additional, Wernli, Karen J., additional, Weaver, Donald L., additional, Stout, Natasha K., additional, and Sprague, Brian L., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. sj-docx-1-mdm-10.1177_0272989X211073320 ��� Supplemental material for A Procedure for Eliciting Women���s Preferences for Breast Cancer Screening Frequency

Author

Grayek, Emily, Yang, Yanran, Fischhoff, Baruch, Schifferdecker, Karen E., Woloshin, Steven, Kerlikowske, Karla, Miglioretti, Diana L., and Tosteson, Anna N. A.

Subjects
111708 Health and Community Services, 111799 Public Health and Health Services not elsewhere classified, 160807 Sociological Methodology and Research Methods, FOS: Health sciences, FOS: Sociology
Abstract

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mdm-10.1177_0272989X211073320 for A Procedure for Eliciting Women���s Preferences for Breast Cancer Screening Frequency by Emily Grayek, Yanran Yang, Baruch Fischhoff, Karen E. Schifferdecker, Steven Woloshin, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana L. Miglioretti and Anna N. A. Tosteson in Medical Decision Making

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. Comparison of Oncologist and Model Estimates of Risk for Hospitalization During Systemic Therapy for Advanced Cancer.

Author

Emery, Lukas P., Muralikrishnan, Sivraj, Schrag, Deb, Tosteson, Anna N. A., and Brooks, Gabriel A.

Subjects
ALBUMINS, SCIENTIFIC observation, CONFIDENCE intervals, MATHEMATICAL models, SODIUM, ACQUISITION of data, CANCER patients, RISK assessment, HOSPITAL care, THEORY, MEDICAL records, TUMORS, DECISION making in clinical medicine, SENSITIVITY & specificity (Statistics), PALLIATIVE treatment, LONGITUDINAL method
Abstract

PURPOSE A validated risk model with inputs of pretreatment sodium and albumin can identify patients at risk for hospitalization during cancer treatment. We evaluated how the model compares with risk estimates from treating oncologists. METHODS We evaluated the 30-day risk of hospitalization or death in patients starting palliative-intent systemic therapy for solid tumor malignancy. For each patient, we prospectively recorded categorical estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk (bottom third, middle third, top third) generated by a treating oncologist and by the two-variable model; a third hybrid risk estimate represented a composite of the oncologist and model risk assessments. We analyzed the agreement of oncologist and model-based risk estimates and compared discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity of each risk assessment method. RESULTS We collected oncologist, model, and hybrid estimates of hospitalization risk for 120 patients. The 30-day rate of hospitalization or death was 20%. There was minimal agreement between oncologist and model risk estimates (weighted kappa = 0.27). The c-statistic (a measure of discrimination) was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.81) for the clinician assessment, 0.77 for the model assessment (CI, 0.67 to 0.86; P = .24 compared with the oncologist assessment), and 0.79 for the hybrid assessment (CI, 0.69 to 0.90; P = .007 compared with the oncologist assessment). Sensitivity and specificity of the high-risk categorization did not differ significantly between the oncologist and model assessments; the hybrid assessment was significantly more sensitive (P = .02) and less specific (P = .03) than the oncologist assessment. CONCLUSION A model with inputs of pretreatment sodium and albumin improves oncologists' predictions of hospitalization risk during cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results