Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Jennifer A. Schlichting is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Jennifer A. Schlichting.


American Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017

Factors Associated With Guideline-recommended KRAS Testing in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Study.

Mary E. Charlton; Jordan J. Karlitz; Jennifer A. Schlichting; Vivien W. Chen; Charles F. Lynch

Objectives: Response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors is poorer among stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with KRAS mutations; thus KRAS testing is recommended before treatment. KRAS testing was collected by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries for 2010 CRC cases, and our goal was to provide the first population-based estimates of testing in the United States. Methods: SEER CRC cases diagnosed in 2010 were evaluated (n=30,351). &khgr;2 tests and logistic regression were conducted to determine patient characteristics associated with KRAS testing, stratified by stages I-III versus stage IV. Log-rank tests were used to examine survival by testing status. Results: KRAS testing among stage IV cases ranged from 39% in New Mexico to 15% in Louisiana. In the model, younger age, being married, living in a metropolitan area, and having primary site surgery were associated with greater odds of receiving KRAS testing. Those who received testing had significantly better survival than those who did not (P<0.0001). Among those who received testing, there was no significant difference in survival by mutated versus wild-type KRAS. Five percent of stage I-III cases received testing. Conclusions: Wide variation in documented KRAS testing for stage IV CRC patients exists among SEER registries. Age remained highly significant in multivariate models, suggesting that it plays an independent role in the patient and/or provider decision to be tested. Further research is needed to determine drivers of variation in testing, as well as reasons for testing in stage I-III cases where it is not recommended.


Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine | 2015

Veterans' Continued Participation in an Annual Fecal Immunochemical Test Mailing Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Jennifer A. Schlichting; Michelle A. Mengeling; Nader Makki; Ashish Malhotra; Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson; J. Stacey Klutts; Barcey T. Levy; Peter J. Kaboli; Mary E. Charlton

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine what proportion of veterans previously screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) would be willing to undergo a second round of FIT screening. Methods: Patients in the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System (<65 years old, asymptomatic, average risk, overdue for CRC screening) who completed a mailed FIT (April 2011 to May 2012) were contacted 1 year later by telephone to collect demographic and recent CRC screening information, and were offered a second mailed FIT if eligible. Results: Of 204 veterans who completed initial FIT testing, 159 were eligible to participate in a second round of FIT screening; 132 (83%) participated in the telephone survey, and 126 (79%) completed a second annual FIT, with 10 (8%) individuals testing positive. The majority of participants (67%) reported being more likely to take a yearly FIT than a colonoscopy every 10 years. Participants overwhelmingly reported that the FIT was easy to use and convenient (89%), and they were likely to complete a mailed FIT each year (97%). Conclusions: Those willing to take a mailed FIT seem satisfied with this method and willing to do it annually. Population-based or provider-based FIT mailing programs have the potential to increase CRC screening in overdue populations.


Journal of Oncology Practice | 2015

Predictors of Long-Term Quality of Life for Survivors of Stage II/III Rectal Cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium

Mary E. Charlton; Karyn B. Stitzenberg; Chi Lin; Jennifer A. Schlichting; Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson; Grelda Yazmin Juarez; Jane F. Pendergast; Elizabeth A. Chrischilles; Robert B. Wallace

PURPOSE Many patients do not receive guideline-recommended neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable rectal cancer. Little is known regarding long-term quality of life (QOL) associated with various treatment approaches. Our objective was to determine patient characteristics and subsequent QOL associated with treatment approach. METHODS Our study was a geographically diverse population- and health system-based cohort study that included adults age 21 years or older with newly diagnosed stage II/III rectal cancer who were recruited from 2003 to 2005. Eligible patients were contacted 1 to 4 months after diagnosis and asked to participate in a telephone survey and to consent to medical record review, with separate follow-up QOL surveys conducted 1 and 7 years after diagnosis. RESULTS Two hundred thirty-nine patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were included in this analysis. Younger age (< 65 v ≥ 65 years: odds ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.33 to 4.65) was significantly associated with increased odds of receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The adjuvant chemoradiotherapy group had significantly worse mean EuroQol-5D (range, 0 to 1) and Short Form-12 physical health component scores (standardized mean, 50) at 1-year follow-up than the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group (0.75 v 0.85; P = .002; 37.2 v 43.3; P = .01, respectively) and the group that received only one or neither form of treatment (0.75 v 0.85; P = .02; 37.2 v 45.1; P = .008, respectively). CONCLUSION Neoadjuvant treatment may result in better QOL and functional status 1 year after diagnosis. Further evaluation of patient and provider reasons for not pursuing neoadjuvant therapy is necessary to determine how and where to target process improvement and/or education efforts to ensure that patients have access to recommended treatment options.


Journal of Rural Health | 2016

Veteran Use of Health Care Systems in Rural States: Comparing VA and Non-VA Health Care Use Among Privately Insured Veterans Under Age 65

Mary E. Charlton; Michelle A. Mengeling; Jennifer A. Schlichting; Lan Jiang; Carolyn Turvey; Amal N. Trivedi; Kenneth W. Kizer; Alan N. West

OBJECTIVE To quantify use of VA and non-VA care among working-age veterans with private insurance by linking VA data to private health insurance plan (PHIP) data. METHODS Demographics and utilization were compared between dual users of VA and non-VA systems versus single-system users for veterans < 65 living in 2 rural Midwestern states concurrently enrolled in VA health care and a PHIP for ≥ 1 complete federal fiscal year from 2000 to 2010. Chi-square and t-tests were used for univariate analyses. VA reliance was computed as the percentage of visits, admissions and prescriptions in VA. Multinomial logistic regression was used to compare characteristics by dual use versus non-VA only or VA only use. RESULTS Of 16,330 eligible veterans, 54% used both VA and non-VA services, 39% used non-VA only, and 5% used VA only. Compared with single-system use, dual use was associated with older age, priority levels 1-4, service-connected conditions, rural residence, greater years of study eligibility, and enrollment in the PHIP before VA. VA reliance was 33% for outpatient care, 14% for inpatient, and 40% for pharmacy. PHIP data substantially underestimated VA use compared to VA data; 26% who used VA health care had no VA claims in the PHIP dataset. CONCLUSIONS Over half of working-age veterans enrolled in VA and private insurance used services in both systems. Care coordination efforts across systems should include veterans of all ages, particularly rural veterans more likely to be dual users, and better methods are needed to identify veterans with private insurance and their private providers.


Cancer Causes & Control | 2017

Treatment selection in oropharyngeal cancer: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) patterns of care analysis

Nitin A. Pagedar; Catherine Chioreso; Jennifer A. Schlichting; Charles F. Lynch; Mary E. Charlton

PurposeTreatment for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) has changed over the past two decades under multiple influences. We provide a population-based description of the application of radiotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy to OPC in 1997, 2004, and 2009.MethodsThe National Cancer Institute’s Patterns of Care study for OPC included multiple variables not available in the public-use dataset. We identified factors correlating with selection of primary surgery versus radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy (RTC) and analyzed predictors of all-cause mortality. We estimated the frequency of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.ResultsRTC was more common in 2009 than in 1997, and was more commonly applied to Stage IV cases. However, RTC was not an independent risk factor for mortality compared with surgery. HPV status was known in 14% of patients in 2009.ConclusionsRTC is the most common treatment for OPC, but it may not provide the best outcomes. HPV testing was uncommon in 2009.


Oncology | 2015

Challenges of rural cancer care in the United States

Mary E. Charlton; Jennifer A. Schlichting; Catherine Chioreso; Marcia M. Ward; Praveen Vikas


Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | 2016

Hospital Characteristics Associated with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Guideline Concordant Care: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare Data

Mary E. Charlton; Jennifer E. Hrabe; Kara B. Wright; Jennifer A. Schlichting; Bradley D. McDowell; Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson; Chi Lin; Karyn B. Stitzenberg; John W. Cromwell


Journal of Community Health | 2014

Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Overdue Population: Participation and Cost Impacts of Adding Telephone Calls to a FIT Mailing Program

Jennifer A. Schlichting; Michelle A. Mengeling; Nader Makki; Ashish Malhotra; Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson; J. Stacey Klutts; Barcey T. Levy; Peter J. Kaboli; Mary E. Charlton


Diseases of The Colon & Rectum | 2018

Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Volume and Rectal Cancer Surgery Outcomes in Patients With Rectal Cancer Treated Since 2000: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

Catherine Chioreso; Natalie Del Vecchio; Marin L. Schweizer; Jennifer A. Schlichting; Irena Gribovskaja-Rupp; Mary E. Charlton


Annals of Epidemiology | 2015

Individual and Zip Code Level Predictors of Radical Resection vs. Local Excision in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Stage I Rectal Cancer Cases

Jennifer A. Schlichting; Bradley D. McDowell; John C. Byrn; Mary E. Charlton

Collaboration


Dive into the Jennifer A. Schlichting's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Michelle A. Mengeling

Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ashish Malhotra

Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

J. Stacey Klutts

Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Peter J. Kaboli

Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge