John D. Keen
John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by John D. Keen.
Radiology | 2011
Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; John D. Keen; Peter C Gøtzsche
The time has come to reassess whether universal mammographic screening should be recommended for any age group because the declines in breast cancer mortality can be ascribed mainly to improved treatments and breast cancer awareness; currently, we see that screening has only a minor effect on mortality (if any).
Journal of Womens Health | 2015
John D. Keen; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Abstract This article reviews four important screening principles applicable to screening mammography in order to facilitate informed choice. The first principle is that screening may help, hurt, or have no effect. In order to reduce mortality and mastectomy rates, screening must reduce the rate of advanced disease, which likely has not happened. Through overdiagnosis, screening produces substantial harm by increasing both lumpectomy and mastectomy rates, which offsets the often-promised benefit of less invasive therapy. Next, all-cause mortality is the most reliable way to measure the efficacy of a screening intervention. Disease-specific mortality is biased due to difficulties in attribution of cause of death and to increased mortality due to overdiagnosis and the resulting overtreatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. To enhance participation, the benefit from screening is often presented in relative instead of absolute terms. Third, some screening statistics must be interpreted with caution. Increased survival time and the percentage of early-stage tumors at detection sound plausible, but are affected by lead-time and length biases. In addition, analyses that only include women who attend screening cannot reliably correct for selection bias. The final principle is that accounting for tumor biology is important for accurate estimates of lead time, and the potential benefit from screening. Since “early detection” is actually late in a tumors lifetime, the time window when screen detection might extend a womans life is narrow, as many tumors that can form metastases will already have done so. Instead of encouraging screening mammography, physicians should help women make an informed decision as with any medical intervention.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | 2008
John D. Keen; James E. Keen
BackgroundIn order to promote consumer-oriented informed medical decision-making regarding screening mammography, we created a decision model to predict the age dependence of the cancer detection rate, the recall rate and the secondary performance measures (positive predictive values, total intervention rate, and positive biopsy fraction) for a baseline mammogram.MethodsWe constructed a decision tree to model the possible outcomes of a baseline screening mammogram in women ages 35 to 65. We compared the single baseline screening mammogram decision with the no screening alternative. We used the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results national cancer database as the primary input to estimate cancer prevalence. For other probabilities, the model used population-based estimates for screening mammography accuracy and diagnostic mammography outcomes specific to baseline exams. We varied radiologist performance for screening accuracy.ResultsThe cancer detection rate increases from 1.9/1000 at age 40 to 7.2/1000 at age 50 to 15.1/1000 at age 60. The recall rate remains relatively stable at 142–157/1000, which varies from 73–236/1000 at age 50 depending on radiologist performance. The positive predictive value of a screening mammogram increases from 1.3% at age 40 to 9.8% at age 60, while the positive predictive value of a diagnostic mammogram varies from 2.9% at age 40 to 19.2% at age 60. The model predicts the total intervention rate = 0.013*AGE2 - 0.67*AGE + 40, or 34/1000 at age 40 to 47/1000 at age 60. Therefore, the positive biopsy (intervention) fraction varies from 6% at age 40 to 32% at age 60.ConclusionBreast cancer prevalence, the cancer detection rate, and all secondary screening mammography performance measures increase substantially with age.
Medical Physics | 2012
Marcia C. Javitt; R. Edward Hendrick; John D. Keen; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Colin G. Orton
Suggestions for topics suitable for these Point/Counterpoint debates should be addressed to Colin G. Orton, Professor Emeritus, Wayne State University, Detroit: [email protected]. Persons participating in Point/Counterpoint discussions are selected for their knowledge and communicative skill. Their positions for or against a proposition may or may not reflect their personal opinions or the positions of their employers.
Medical Physics | 2012
Marcia C. Javitt; Hendrick Re; John D. Keen; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Colin G. Orton
Suggestions for topics suitable for these Point/Counterpoint debates should be addressed to Colin G. Orton, Professor Emeritus, Wayne State University, Detroit: [email protected]. Persons participating in Point/Counterpoint discussions are selected for their knowledge and communicative skill. Their positions for or against a proposition may or may not reflect their personal opinions or the positions of their employers.
Medical Physics | 2012
Marcia C. Javitt; R. Edward Hendrick; John D. Keen; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Colin G. Orton
Suggestions for topics suitable for these Point/Counterpoint debates should be addressed to Colin G. Orton, Professor Emeritus, Wayne State University, Detroit: [email protected]. Persons participating in Point/Counterpoint discussions are selected for their knowledge and communicative skill. Their positions for or against a proposition may or may not reflect their personal opinions or the positions of their employers.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | 2009
John D. Keen; James E. Keen
Annals of Internal Medicine | 2012
John D. Keen
Annals of Internal Medicine | 2011
John D. Keen
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2018
John D. Keen; Joanna M. Keen; James E. Keen