Jan Lowery

Dr. Jan Lowery


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 June 2016 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JLJan Lowery
Jan Lowery
DADennis J. Ahnen
Dennis J. Ahnen
PSPaul C. Schroy
Paul C. Schroy
HHHeather Hampel
Heather Hampel
NBNancy Baxter
Nancy Baxter
RSRobert Smith
Robert Smith
Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have an increased risk for CRC. An understanding of these risks, screening recommendations, and screening behaviors can inform strategies for reducing the CRC burden in these families. A comprehensive review of the literature published within the past 10 years has been performed to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening, and effective interventions in persons with an FH of CRC and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Existing data show that having 1 affected first‐degree relative (FDR) increases the CRC risk 2‐fold, and the risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and a younger age at diagnosis. There is variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence is <50% and is lower in persons under the age of 50 years. A provider's recommendation, multiple affected relatives, and family encouragement facilitate screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication are important barriers. Effective interventions incorporate strategies for overcoming barriers, but these have not been broadly tested in clinical settings. Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improving the collection and utilization of the FH of cancer, 2) establishing a consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhancing provider‐patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, and 4) encouraging survivors to promote screening within their families and partnering with existing screening programs to expand their reach to high‐risk groups. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2633–2645. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

1 April 2014 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JLJan Lowery
Jan Lowery
NHNora Horick
Nora Horick
AKAnita Y. Kinney
Anita Y. Kinney
DFDianne M. Finkelstein
Dianne M. Finkelstein
KGKathleen Garrett
Kathleen Garrett
DADennis J. Ahnen
Dennis J. Ahnen
Background: Individuals with a strong family history of colorectal cancer have significant risk for colorectal cancer, although adherence to colonoscopy screening in these groups remains low. This study assessed whether a tailored telephone counseling intervention can increase adherence to colonoscopy in members of high-risk families in a randomized, controlled trial. Methods: Eligible participants were recruited from two national cancer registries if they had a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer under age 60 or multiple affected family members, which included families that met the Amsterdam criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC), and if they were due for colonoscopy within 24 months. Participants were randomized to receive a tailored telephone intervention grounded in behavioral theory or a mailed packet with general information about screening. Colonoscopy status was assessed through follow-up surveys and endoscopy reports. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess intervention effect. Results: Of the 632 participants (ages 25–80), 60% were female, the majority were White, non-Hispanic, educated, and had health insurance. Colonoscopy adherence increased 11 percentage points in the tailored telephone intervention group, compared with no significant change in the mailed group. The telephone intervention was associated with a 32% increase in screening adherence compared with the mailed intervention (HR, 1.32; P = 0.01). Conclusions: A tailored telephone intervention can effectively increase colonoscopy adherence in high-risk persons. This intervention has the potential for broad dissemination to healthcare organizations or other high-risk populations. Impact: Increasing adherence to colonoscopy among persons with increased colorectal cancer risk could effectively reduce incidence and mortality from this disease. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(4); 601–10. ©2014 AACR.

1 February 2016 in American Journal of Gastroenterology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SPSwati G Patel
Swati G Patel
DADennis J Ahnen
Dennis J Ahnen
AKAnita Y Kinney
Anita Y Kinney
NHNora Horick
Nora Horick
DFDianne M Finkelstein
Dianne M Finkelstein
JLJan Lowery
Jan Lowery
OBJECTIVES:Individuals whose families meet the Amsterdam II clinical criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer are recommended to be referred for genetic counseling and to have colonoscopic screening every 1–2 years. To assess the uptake and knowledge of guideline-based genetic counsel

1 March 2015 in American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HWHolly J. Wolf
Holly J. Wolf
ADAndrea Dwyer
Andrea Dwyer
DADennis J. Ahnen
Dennis J. Ahnen
SPShannon L. Pray
Shannon L. Pray
SRSusan M. Rein
Susan M. Rein
TBTim E. Byers
Tim E. Byers

27 October 2010 in Cancer Causes & Control
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JLJan Lowery
Jan Lowery
TBTim Byers
Tim Byers
JHJohn E. Hokanson
John E. Hokanson
JKJohn Kittelson
John Kittelson
JLJohn Lewin
John Lewin
JMJudy Mouchawar
Judy Mouchawar

1 January 2013 in Trials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RSRebecca G Simmons
Rebecca G Simmons
YLYuan-Chin Amy Lee
Yuan-Chin Amy Lee
ASAntoinette M Stroup
Antoinette M Stroup
SESandra L Edwards
Sandra L Edwards
ARAmy Rogers
Amy Rogers
AKAnita Y Kinney
Anita Y Kinney
Colonoscopy is one of the most effective methods of cancer prevention and detection, particularly for individuals with familial risk. Recruitment of family members to behavioral intervention trials remains uniquely challenging, owing to the intensive process required to identify and contact them. Recruiting at-risk family members involves contacting the original cancer cases and asking them to provide information about their at-risk relatives, who must then be contacted for study enrollment. Though this recruitment strategy is common in family trials, few studies have compared influences of patient and relative participation to nonparticipation. Furthermore, although use of cancer registries to identify initial cases has increased, to our knowledge no study has examined the relationship between registries and family recruitment outcomes.