Matching Items (3)
Description
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most highly diagnosed cancers in the United States and accounts for 9.5% of all new cancer cases worldwide. With a 50% five-year prognosis, it is the second highest cancerous cause of death in the U.S. CRC tumors express antigens that are capable of inducing an immune response. The identification of autoantibodies (AAb) against tumor-associated antigens (TAA) may facilitate personalized tumor treatment in the form of targeted immunotherapy. The objective of this study was to observe the AAb expression raised against a 2000 human gene survey in late-stage colorectal cancer using the Nucleic Acid Programmable Protein Arrays (NAPPA). AAbs from serum samples were collected from 80 patients who died within 24 months of their last blood draw and 80 age and gender matched healthy control were profiled using NAPPA. TAA p53, a well-established protein that is one of the most highly mutated across a variety of cancers, was one of the top candidates based on statistical analysis, which, along with its family proteins p63 and p73 (which showed inverse AAb response profiles) warranted further testing via RAPID ELISA. Statistical analysis from these results revealed an inverse differential relationship between p53 and p63, in which p53 seropositivity was higher in patients than in controls, while the opposite was unexpectedly the case for p63. This study involving the AAb immunoprofiling of advanced stage CRC patients is one of the first to shed light on the high-throughput feasibility of immunoproteomic experiments using protein arrays as well as the identification of immunotherapy targets in a more rapid move towards specialized treatment of advanced CRC.
ContributorsSzeto, Emily (Author) / LaBaer, Joshua (Thesis director) / Qiu, Ji (Committee member) / Demirkan, Gokhan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor)
Created2014-12
Description
A cost analysis was done on the participant recruitment for an ongoing research project to promote colon cancer screening in Phoenix, Arizona. The aim of the 5-year project is to navigate people, who do not regularly see primary care physicians, from the community to a nearby clinic to be screened, using an intervention strategy called tailored navigation. Through tailored navigation, participants' barriers to being screened are addressed by Community Health Navigators, who call the participant over the span of 8 weeks following an initial class at a community site and give them information on how to overcome his or her specific barrier. The objective of this cost analysis is to explore the costs of recruiting a participant from the community to the initial class to a potential program manager. The process of recruitment involved recruitment of a community site, project introduction, the sign-up of interested participants, eligibility, baseline, and consent tests, and the class itself. A Community Site Liaison recruits sites and schedules class times. The Community Health Navigator conducts eligibility, baseline, and consent surveys and teaches the class, a sixty minute presentation on colon cancer screening. The cost of recruitment per community site was $541.23, and the cost per participant attending class was estimated to be $1,594.41 per participant with variation between $1,379.97 and $1,770.71 in optimistic and conservative scenarios, respectively.
ContributorsMishra, Shovna (Author) / Koretz, Lora (Thesis director) / Larkey, Linda (Committee member) / Herman, Patricia M. (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Department of Management (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
Purpose: The purpose of this project was to implement a change in workflow to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and improve Meaningful Use scores in a primary care setting.
Background and Significance: CRC is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States among men and women. Current CRC screening rates remain low, even with advanced screening options available. Meaningful Use sets specific objectives for health care providers to achieve. Documenting CRC screening status and recommending CRC screenings to patients is one of the objectives of Meaningful Use and is considered a Clinical Quality Measure (HealthIT.gov). Factors that lead to CRC screening include primary care providers (PCPs) raising the topic, involving support staff, involving patients in the decision-making process, and setting alerts in electronic health records (EHRs).
Methods: The Health Belief Model and Ottawa Model of Research Use helped guide this project. The project took place at a private primary care practice. The focus was on patients between the ages of 50 and 75 years old meeting criteria for CRC. Five PCPS and five medical assistants (MAs) chose to participate in the study. Participants were given pre and post Practice Culture Assessment (PCA) surveys to measure perceptions of the practice culture. The project included a three-part practice change: PCP and MA education about CRC screening guidelines, EHR documentation and reminders, and a change of patient visit workflow which included having MAs review patient's CRC screening status before they were seen by the PCP and handing out CRC screening brochures when appropriate. PCPs then ordered the appropriate CRC screening, and the MA documented the screening in the EHR under a designated location. CRC Screening Project Evaluation Forms were completed by MAs after each patient visit.
Outcomes: No significant difference from pre to post survey satisfaction scores were found (t (8) = - 1.542, p= = .162). Means of quantitative data were reported from the CRC screening evaluation forms; N=91. The most common method of screening chosen was colonoscopy, 87%. A strong correlation was found (r (-.293) = .01, p<.05) between receiving a CRC brochure and choosing a form of screening. Meaningful Use scores pre and post project are pending.
Conclusion: Patients are more likely to choose a screening method when the topic is raised in a primary care setting. Continued staff education on workflow is important to sustain this change. Further research is needed to evaluate cost effectiveness and sustainability of this practice change.
Background and Significance: CRC is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States among men and women. Current CRC screening rates remain low, even with advanced screening options available. Meaningful Use sets specific objectives for health care providers to achieve. Documenting CRC screening status and recommending CRC screenings to patients is one of the objectives of Meaningful Use and is considered a Clinical Quality Measure (HealthIT.gov). Factors that lead to CRC screening include primary care providers (PCPs) raising the topic, involving support staff, involving patients in the decision-making process, and setting alerts in electronic health records (EHRs).
Methods: The Health Belief Model and Ottawa Model of Research Use helped guide this project. The project took place at a private primary care practice. The focus was on patients between the ages of 50 and 75 years old meeting criteria for CRC. Five PCPS and five medical assistants (MAs) chose to participate in the study. Participants were given pre and post Practice Culture Assessment (PCA) surveys to measure perceptions of the practice culture. The project included a three-part practice change: PCP and MA education about CRC screening guidelines, EHR documentation and reminders, and a change of patient visit workflow which included having MAs review patient's CRC screening status before they were seen by the PCP and handing out CRC screening brochures when appropriate. PCPs then ordered the appropriate CRC screening, and the MA documented the screening in the EHR under a designated location. CRC Screening Project Evaluation Forms were completed by MAs after each patient visit.
Outcomes: No significant difference from pre to post survey satisfaction scores were found (t (8) = - 1.542, p= = .162). Means of quantitative data were reported from the CRC screening evaluation forms; N=91. The most common method of screening chosen was colonoscopy, 87%. A strong correlation was found (r (-.293) = .01, p<.05) between receiving a CRC brochure and choosing a form of screening. Meaningful Use scores pre and post project are pending.
Conclusion: Patients are more likely to choose a screening method when the topic is raised in a primary care setting. Continued staff education on workflow is important to sustain this change. Further research is needed to evaluate cost effectiveness and sustainability of this practice change.
ContributorsMcKillop, Ashley (Author) / Chiffelle, Rochelle (Thesis advisor)
Created2018-05-05